I wasn't aware that (again, I'm somewhat of a newbie) there had to be a board member for each TLP within Apache. Of course, I didn't realize that all projects within Apache XML are TLPs. If XML itself were a TLP with each project within it merely being a subproject (a la Jakarta), then I would say that Digester (or DigesterJ) should be a subproject of it. But, if it's structured as you say it is, then maybe you're right. The way I would see the hierarchy would be:
Apache -> XML -> Digester -> different flavors (perl, ruby, Java, python, etc.). So, Digester (as a concept; like logging) would be a subproject within XML (not a TLP), since it's XML-specific. -----Original Message----- From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:51 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: RE: [Digester] Question about ports On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:11 -0400, James Carman wrote: > Just make sure you use the apache license! +1 use version 2 :) > I think the idea/concept of > Digester is big enough to merit a TLP (or group of them). And, since it's > an XML-specific technology, I think it belongs within the XML group. Then > again, I'm no expert here, but it seems an obvious fit to me. IMHO too many small TLPs would bring difficulties. for example, i'm not sure whether it would make sense to have an ASF board member for digester. what has been in the air (and in my mind) for a little while is the idea of a TLP bring together various code-centric mapping and binding technologies from both inside and outside apache but IMHO the time isn't right (as yet). - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
