ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Conor MacNeill" <>
Subject RE: [Vote] Avalon-Framework integration
Date Thu, 10 May 2001 03:32:48 GMT
> From: Peter Donald []
> Right - and docs will be done by the time we get to implementing this and
> you know this ... so whats your point?

You have kicked us into design phase and you are proposing a vote on the
adoption of the Avalon framework. Therefore I want to read the
documentation. This is not available and the documentation that is on the
web is in fact misleading. How could I vote +1 under these circumstance.

> >I don't see how people not
> >involved in Avalon can effectively contribute.
> Then thats because you closed your eyes. I have said time and time again
> that the task developers will not be aware that Ant is Avalon aware.

So the adoption of otherwise of Avalon is not an issue for Task writers. I
was actually commenting on the ability of people to make changes to the Ant
core. I include myself in that group. I'm not sure how when the
documentation of Avalon is not available now, during the design phase, I
could contribute to designing an Avalon based Ant.

> But as you know that and I have said that a few times ...
> somethings amiss???

Besides your manners? No.

> Compression is not an feature of the framework but of the code that uses
> it. No framework stops you shooting your foot - some make it harder

Frameworks are the reason the code that uses the framework is compressed. It
is an inherent feature of frameworks. It has good and bad points. Don't you
agree? Highly compressed code for Ant's core would not make Ant easier to
maintain and extend.

> >And how have they been tested in Avalon? You just stated above that "Well
> >considering that Framework has been designed around Ant as a use
> case this
> >won't be an issue for us". Considering the usage of Ant, I think it will
> >get a fair amount of testing. Natural open source effect.
> I don't understand your point here.

My point is: You have stated that developing code for Ant would duplicate
Avalong but be "raw and untested", whatever raw means. The clear implication
is that Avalon's code is "tested". I am trying to find out how you have
tested. Where is this code deployed that it has received significant
testing. You are making assertions and I want to see the facts.

> >Anyway, your statements that you just quickly hacked stuff up
> seems to say
> >to me that the framework is not that mature. Is that the case?
> Err... not sure I follow your logic. If I were to write a proposal servlet
> and it was quickly hacked together - does that imply that the servlet spec
> is immature? Is THAT the logic you are using?

If the framework is not providing the services you require to implement
something, if you are driven to hack around it, the implication I draw from
that is that the framework is perhaps not that mature. You are being driven
to hack around it's limitations. What is the framework providing? BTW, will
you base a release of Ant2 on an unreleased version of Avalon?

> >I have other concerns. When you build code with a framework, it is like
> >building a chair with two legs. It only works when the framework supplies
> >the other two legs.
> Then you have been subjected to bad toolkits or at least different
> frameworks. AvalonFramework doesn't do anything at all - by DESIGN.

So, if it doesn't do anything at all, what exactly does it do?

> It
> offers a frameowrk to work in or a schaffold for design etc. In technical
> terms it is a level 2 toolkit with minimal content and maximal form.]

Can you give me a reference for the definition of a level 2 toolkit?

> BTW I can't help but sense you have gone into attack mode. It seems like
> you don't understand Avalon and thus decided easier to attack.

How can I understand it when it is not adequately documented. Yeah I know,
its on the way. How can you propose a vote on adopting Avalon for Ant in
these circumstances.

> The fact
> that all your attacks miss the mark is another indicator that you lack
> knowledge about domain.

Don't be condescending. I am not attacking. I am trying to understand why we
should use Avalon. All I get is assertions.

> If you really *do* want to know something then ask
> ;) Think of it this way - Avalon does have a few holes - actually learn
> about it and you will be able to "defeat" it easier if thats your
> real aim ;)

Let me save you further ranting. If no other committer supports my -1, you
can degrade it.

Ant2 off to a great start - I don't need this shit.


View raw message