"Stephen Colebourne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jakarta is having trouble redefining what is truly stands for. I had hoped > that in Jakarta-Commons we knew. However, since its specifically different > to what is in the charter, I guess we should decide. And then update the > charter. http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html > > From the websites: > 'small scale, reusable, code components that are useful in multiple Jakarta > subprojects' > > 'focused on all aspects of reusable Java components' > > 'creating and maintaining reusable Java components' > > 'collaboration and sharing, where developers from throughout the Jakarta > community can work together on projects to be shared by the Jakarta projects > and Jakarta users' > > > There are other practical ways to define it. Each J-C component has > insufficient community on its own to survive at Apache, either as an > independent TLP or within another TLP. Yet within J-C the component is > supported and watched over. For example, one way to view this is by mailing > lists. If each commons component had its own mailing list, then most would > be very quiet. Not enough to stand alone. > > My preferred short definition of J-C is: > 'creating and maintaining small-scale, reusable, utility components written > in Java' > > Is this definition OK? Any comments?
This pretty much boots Daemon out of J-C, which would be IMHO would be a shame. Almost of the (supported) code in Daemon is written in C (basically, JNI wrappers to solve OS level restrictions on Java code), so it wouldn't fit the definition. However, it is most definitely Java-centric, so I'd be happiest if it stayed in Jakarta. I'm only a developer for Daemon, so I don't get to vote on its future. And if it is booted out to A-C, then I'll follow it there. But I think that it's best fit is with Jakarta. > Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]