On 3/5/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/5/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Time to stop being negative, here is what I would like to happen next. > > > > > > > > > I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity named 'Jakarta > > > Language Components'. > > > > > > This will be formed from the following codebases: > > > [lang] > > > [io] > > > [collections] - expected to divide > > > [primitives] > > > [codec] > > > [id] - on exit from sandbox > > > [convert] - if ever developed > > > > > > I currently believe these are related, but out of scope: > > > [beanutils] - logging is an issue > > > [pool] - is pooling more J2EE than J2SE > > > [oro]/[regexp] - specialised knowledge > > > [math] - specialised, has dependencies > > > > > > Jakarta Language Components will: > > > - develop multiple independent components > > > - each component will have no dependencies > > > - each component will have no configuration > > > - each component provides an extension to the J2SE > > > - code judged by would it be out of place in the J2SE > > > - a component typically has a broad API (many callable methods) > > > - each method typically does relatively little processing > > > - have mailing lists (user/dev/commit) > > > - not have a sandbox > > > - use jakarta-general (or jakarta-dev?) for cross group issues > > > > > > > > > For some, this may invoke an immediate negative reaction. But I'd ask > > > you to pause and reflect a while. This change allows a new approach to > > > commons to be tried - smaller and more focussed. The new group is > large > > > enough to not be inactive, yet small enough to be manageable. To > succeed > > > however, it will need to support of those developers who do commit to > > > these components at present. > > > > > > +1. Despite my general reluctance to break up the Commons community, I > like > > this. It creates a clearly focussed other-Commons that should leave both > > communities healthy - and probably leave the current Commons more > manageable > > in the process. > > -1. > > I've no problem with grouping those components together, or the name > of the grouping. It makes a lot of sense and fits nicely with HTTP > Components and Web Components. Course the other one becomes > BiggerCommonsComponents or Misc Components or something. Also, Jakarta > File Components will want to have IO in along with FileUpload, VFS, > Compress. > > My reason for being against the idea is that it's a continuation of > Jakarta as a set of communities without much overlap.
Jakarta *is* a set of communities, whether you like it or not. A community is an organic entity that lives and breathes on its own. It is what it is; you (meaning anyone, not just you, Hen) can't just decide that it should be something different from what it has grown into organically, over a period of several years. If a set of communities ends up folding into a single community, that will happen naturally, not because someone decided that's what it "should" be. -- Martin Cooper I'm +1 to the idea of splitting Commons up into groupings - provided > we don't break up the community. > > Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
