"Saying Jakarta => Java" Yep, that is what I meant.
Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 16:33 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: RE: What is Jakarta Commons? > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > Jakarta is, and IMO should remain, a Java only project. This is not > > > SourceForge. > > > > Yes, please, Jakarta == Java. This makes Jakarta one place to go for all > > things Java that are not TLP (like Ant). > > You mean for all things Java that are not TLP or inside another umbrella > TLP, right? Don't forget that you still have to look inside various other > TLPs to find things like Xerces and Xalan (XML), Lenya (Cocoon) or SOAP > (Web Services). > > Saying Jakarta => Java is one thing, but trying to say Java => Jakarta > isn't going to go very far. > > -- > Martin Cooper > > > > > > Gary > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 14:44 > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > Subject: Re: What is Jakarta Commons? > > > > > > > > > --- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > "The subproject shall create and maintain packages written in the > Java > > > > > language, intended for use in server-related development, and > designed > > > > to > > > > > be used independently of any larger product or framework." > > > > > > > > > > in what way is anything in j-c "specifically different" from that > > > > > statement? > > > > The "intended for use in server-related development" is not > something I > > > > believe we should have any more. It creates an artificial limit > which we > > > > don't need. The "written in the Java language" is also perhaps > slightly > > > > too > > > > tight, as we shouldn't exclude [daemon]. > > > > > > Jakarta is, and IMO should remain, a Java only project. This is not > > > SourceForge. > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > Less importantly, the name 'package' is confusing, and component or > > > > product > > > > might make more sense. > > > > > > > > I'm not proposing radical change, just a tidying up of the charter, > > > > especially to eliminate the parts that are clearly wrong. References > to > > > > "sponsoring subproject" and "catalog packages and other resources" > are > > > > especially inaccurate. > > > > > > > > Stephen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now > > > http://companion.yahoo.com/ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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]
