ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paulo Gaspar" <>
Subject RE: [Vote] Avalon-Framework integration
Date Mon, 21 May 2001 13:18:19 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Donald []
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 7:44 AM
> At 06:04 PM 5/20/01 +0200, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> >I come to late to this thread, but as a recent user of
> >parts of Avalon, this is my experience:
> >
> > - At the first sight, Avalon sure looks to be abusing
> >   some abstractions a bit - specially the roles thing.
> >   In this case, Conor MacNeill remarks seem to make some
> >   sense (one needs to absorb the "Avalon culture" to use
> >   some of those things);
> I would be interested in where you see problems of this in the framework
> part of Avalon (I know they exist in Phoenix and to a lesser degree
> cornerstone).

In the framework, I only see a couple of interfaces one has
to get used and some people can still argue about then.

However, they are quite ok with me:
 - Even the "most abstract" ones are non intrusive (you can
   ignore them and still do something);
 - They are mostly quite simple and a small price to pay to
   take advantage of a framework's functionality (all the
   "most abstract" ones seem to be framework related).

I have no complains on the framework.

> > - Another problem with Avalon, are package names like
> >   "excalibur" or "phoenix" that are (to say the least)
> >   a bit less helpful than I would like them;
> It is the apache way ;)

Sorry, still don't like it. I would prefer a more meaningful

> > - Many parts of Avalon are so highly reusable outside of
> >   the framework context, that it would even make a lot
> >   sense to move them to the Commons including, at least:
> Alternatively commons should never have been created and that group should
> have worked with an existing project ;)

Commons is more of a loose (CPAN-like?) structure to place
any generic use utility while Avalon has another focus.
There is a space for each.

However, Avalon is only "being sold" as a framework and is
not making a good enough job of "selling" its common use
parts, except for the "log" components.

I was quite pleasantly surprised when I finally took a look at
the code and found a lot of components that can be use by
them selves. I was also pleasantly surprised with the almost
null dependencies of those components.

There are Apache projects that make a very good job of
selling (and even over valuating) themselves (Turbine?), but
Avalon is doing a lousy job at that.

> > - As for the documentation, it was quite easy to me to
> >   understand what I use trough the Javadocs, only taking
> >   a look to the source code in order to understand the
> >   the code's quality (which is quite good/clear for me).
> Unfortunately the javadocs assume that you understand the high-level
> concepts and DPs (ie IOC/SOC/etc) which can be intimidating at first.
> Luckily there is a tutorial and a papaer being prepared for ApacheCon, and
> also I believe an article for JavaWorld in the works so hopefully there
> will be more useful docs in that area real soon now ;)

I still got it easily without being an Academic myself.
(And my family name is not Einstein.)

> Cheers,
> Pete
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> | everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
> |              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*

Of course!

Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

View raw message