--- James Ring wrote: > Does CLI fit into the picture? Or do you feel that > there are issues with it > that would prevent it from becoming part of the > proposed JLC? CLI has dependencies at present. A slimmed down CLIv2 might be appropriate. Question is whether we believe this would be an appropriate J2SE enhancement.
--- James Ring wrote: > Would the JLC be distributed as one jar file? If so, > could JLC components > depend on each other? What are your opinions on > distribution issues like that? I would expect each component to have its own jar. As with commons, there probably should be a jlc-combo.jar too, but thats optional. --- Torsten Curdt wrote: > ...on the other hand it might hard to decide > whether some belongs to that grouping or not. > The definition of "language focussed" is just > too blurry IMO. --- Dion Gillard wrote: > For example, does email fit into the language components? --- Henri Yandell wrote: > csv? Thats why I attempted to describe it clearly. J2SE-based - so no email, xml, xpath, mbeans, daemon, db... Suitable for adding to the J2SE, so no validator, chain, ... Broad-shallow API - many small routines, not one task per component CSV is probably JLC. --- Torsten Curdt wrote: > What about tagging the components? Tagging is just a website niceity. It doesn't solve the size issue of commons. There are too many of us here. Discussions get drowned out or missed. --- Phil Steitz wrote: > I am +1, as long as we agree informally to keep the > "overlap" stuff mentioned here and elsewhere alive. We have to. There needs to be a jakarta-wide (no longer commons-wide) place to discuss shared issues, and share knowledge. --- Henri Yandell wrote: > To effect this, I think that the sandbox should be at > the Jakarta level and not at the Commons level. +1. But I think you may need a jakarta-dev list. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
