The big difference is that, if J-C joins A-C, we don't necessarily maintain our current release structures, rules, lists etc.
If A-C joins J-C, the J-C way of doing things becomes the initial A-C way of doing things, and we fix the ones that are a problem for the new projects. A-C is 1 project currently, J-C is 30 odd. Changing 1 seems a lot easier than changing 30. Hen On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Ted Husted wrote: > +1 for Matthew Harthrone's post. > > The board installed the Apache Commons with the charter "creation and > maintenance of open-source software related to reusable libraries and > components" > > <http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_09_18.txt> > > and it was later affirmed that the AC is language agnostic. > > IMHO, if we want to be good Apache citizens, then we should embrace the > AC community. Many of our products could be made available in other > languages, expanding on the idea of common components. > > Meanwhile, if more of us who joined the ASF through Jakarta are "rubbing > elbows" with Apaches who entered through other projects, then there is a > much better chance for Darwin to decide which aspects of the "Jakarta > Way" and "Apache Way" should prevail. > > The very best place to do that would be an Apache Commons, where we can > all serve together on a PMC with a clear and common goal. > > I would not oppose JC as a TLP, but in that case, we remain insular. If > we join AC, then we take the first step toward creating a Unified Way. > > -Ted. > > __matthewHawthorne wrote: > > I'm fairly new to the Apache scene, but I think I like the idea. I > > think that Jakarta Commons is buried down deeper than it should be. Some > > of the projects such as [digester] and [jxpath] are so gosh darn useful > > that they deserve to be in a more visible space. > > > > However, I'm not sure that I understand your suggestion about Jakarta > > Commons becoming top level, and then being joined by Apache Commons. I > > think it should be the other way around -- Jakarta Commons projects > > should become Apache Commons projects. > > > > But in a sense, it can all seem redundant. If Apache Commons then has > > projects for all languages, there would need to be at least a small w > > separation of projects by language, if only for web site listing, or > > coding standards, etc. So, there would be a Java branch of Apache > > Commons -- which is kind of what Jakarta was in the first place, > > Apache's Java project, right? > > > > So, my point is, I agree that Jakarta Commons might benefit in being > > higher up. I'm surprised that Struts isn't a top level project already, > > but if it were to be, then that would be another top level project that > > depends on JC -- which doesn't quite fit with the charter. > > > > Although, as I just mentioned, the language issues still confuse me. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
