Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release

On Wednesday 19 March 2003 16:53, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:08, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> > I, for one, like to keep things simple and understandable. I don't fa=
vour
> > "essential information" hidden in comments, in a parser friendly form=
at.
>
> Where do you want it put?
>
> Metadata makes the components easier to use, deploy and maintain. You c=
ould
> store it outside the components in config files but then you have to ma=
ke
> sure multiple artefacts keep in sync. Having the config files generated
> from the source (or baked in) makes maintainence simple. Best place to
> document code is with the code and metadata is just aform of documentat=
ion.

We live in an XML world (or at least I do), and having a "unified" XML Me=
ta=20
description document, that can be transformed (for compatibility reasons?=
) to=20
each containers requirement, sounds a lot easier to me...

Especially considering the @tags already in some of my source, from UML a=
nd=20
JDO (Kodo). It is outright ugly, and after specified (hardly every up for=
=20
change), just occupies vasts amount of precious screen space. Easily get =
half=20
the screen of @tag lines.

Also, if you are requiring me to have dedicated Ant tasks (not everybody=20
builds with Ant (strangely enough)) to be used when I develop my Avalon=20
blocks/components, then you ARE raising the bar significantly.

I'm pretty new to Avalon (apart from being used in Cocoon), and it has be=
en a=20
breeze to start developing components. If I had to get Ant tasks to work =
for=20
my builds, I would probably have turned at the doorway.=20
Step out of your boxes and look at it from the 3rdParty person's POV. The=
=20
world don't center around Avalon "core components", and for Avalon to rea=
lly=20
take off, we need a friendlier entry point, and XML is (today) a lot=20
friendlier and more accepted, than "yet-another-semi-obscure-@-tagset" in=
=20
comments.

Niclas