On 3/6/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 3/6/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip/> > > > It might make things simpler to draw up an entire future re-org of > > Jakarta. See who gets dropped through the cracks and decide if we have > > to kill, accept or leave them to stand alone. There are some obvious > > ones for JWC, and some that just don't seem to fit and would have to > > stand alone. > > I disagree there, and that is what actually led me to move to +1 for > Stephen's proposal, when I have consistently argued against breaking > j-c up in the past. I think it is reasonable to attack the "problem" > (which, like some others I am not sure is as much a problem as some of > us think) of lack of organization by letting self-organizing ideas > like the one being discussed here move forward. In other words, > instead of asking, "OK, so now how to we organize the rest of the > stuff?" we instead focus on getting JLC going and then keep an open > mind for the rest. Maybe the remaining commons components continue > just fine for another several years. Maybe the struts components move > over to struts and the JEE-ish things move into Geronimo or JWC really > happens and they mostly move there. Maybe [math] finally gets a job > and leaves home. And maybe none of this happens, or it happens slowly > and independently. The key thing is to have it driven by people who > want to make it happen.
Nicely said. Exactly. Organic growth. -- Martin Cooper So who is going to make JWC happen :-) > > Phil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
