commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Berin Loritsch" <>
Subject RE: The exegesis
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2002 14:48:22 GMT
> From: Henri Yandell [] 
> I think some parts of this are unjustified Ola. Afaik, the 
> only Avalon person here is Nicola, and his recent email is 
> the first negative contribution he's made since joining I 
> mean. Negative in terms of a -1 rather than it being a bad 
> contribution.

And me! don't forget me!  Seriously though, Nicola has taken
the banner and really sought to merge the common bits--collections,
lang, etc.

> It's not so much a thing to blame on Avalon people as it is a 
> mentality of the Commons people. Commons and Avalon are 
> coming out of a period of being [violently?, loudly] at odds 
> with each other and in effect, one of the settlements was 
> that Avalon was this big framework but it would use Commons 
> for its internal common bits, and that the Commons developers 
> didn't want to be putting together a framework style system, 
> though this was more of a Commons belief than something 
> Avalon cared about. Avalon have made far more steps to 
> settlement than Commons at the moment.

There is a bit of idealogical blockades to work through.  Remember
that tearing down the Berlin wall did not happen overnight.  It
took a long time for east and west Germany to heal their wounds.
By acting too soon, we can make the relationships between the
two projects of Avalon and Commons worse rather than better.

> So the resistance [patterns] is feeling is not that of Avalon 
> trying to say 'we alone should have that' but more that of 
> Commons saying 'but we don't want frameworks'. Where Avalon 
> should be able to come in is in terms of their experience in 
> building a framework system, conventions and useful bits they 
> can offer. Also that it may be that the [patterns] components 
> would be better suited to live in avalon, up for debate.
> So the process is a lot about convincing Commons projects 
> that they would benefit from adhering to a common set of 
> patterns. Then whether other Jakarta projects would etc etc.

Exactly.  Commons is for common utilities, etc.  Avalon is a framework.
Commons charter states no framework.  Avalon can live with this--even
though there are some things in Commons that are suspiciously like
frameworks.  We realize that it can't be helped.

I don't know much about the charter of patterns, but I will say
that lifecycle methods don't really sound like they belong to
a Commons project.  BTW, we don't consider Resettable/Recyclable
(the Avalon equiv.) to be a real lifecycle interface.

> There are definitely a lot of philosophical/technical/real-worldical
> discussions abotu [patterns] and holding it back from 
> developing. How Stephen has managed to stop himself from 
> turning up at OSCON with an uzi I don't know :) I suspect Prozac.


> The other half of things is that of avoiding redundancy. 
> That's mainly where Avalon comes in. Patterns can reinvent 
> the wheel if it wants to, it's commonly stated that there's 
> no rule saying you can't have two similar projects in 
> Jakarta, but usually it's helpful to everyone to have those 
> two projects share notes from time to time. Or merge. etc etc.

There is nothing wrong with raising awareness.  If a solution is
already covered, then we will state it.  BTW, as soon as Commons
makes a new Collections release, we will be deprecating our version
and linking to the commons site.  I'm sure that Commons developers
would see it in their heart to point people to Avalon for lifecycle
methods to...

> Just a view from someone who likes the idea of patterns but 
> thinks it's a difficult path to walk.

I have no idea what Patterns is supposed to accomplish, but I agree
it is a difficult path to walk.  The fact that Patterns is a bunch
of interfaces, implies the fact that it is a framework to build
implementations of the patterns with.  That kind of violates the
Commons charter.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message