Henri Yandell wrote on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:36 PM: > On 4/3/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've got a question: If we have commons.apache.org, what will be the >> difference to jakarta.apache.org, apart from the missing projects? >> Why do we expect that c.a.p will work, although we assume that j.a.p >> didn't? > > I had three answers to this in my first email, here's a > rewording/summary to see if I can explain them better: > > 1: The inactive parts of Jakarta is a millstone around the neck of the > active parts. Trying to reorganize such things is a battle that I > don't think is worth fighting (so your missing projects difference > above). > > 2: Even if Jakarta does flatten down somewhat, it'll still have a huge > umbrella type PMC who care for the name and history, but aren't > involved in the remaining projects. So a c.a.p will have a much more > focused PMC. > > 3: I believe that hanging around is just keeping the old broken system > alive, us moving to c.a.p would be a big step in driving a Jakata > solution along. > > The other solution is the 'promote all of Commons up to Jakarta > Subprojects, and groupings and all that jazz' that we talked over a > year ago; but I just don't think that's going to happen.
I never got why things like ECS, ORO, regexp are not part of commons. What makes them different to logging or digester? I can understand the separation for something like POI, but not necessarily for components I would describe as utitlity libs. Maybe I'm lacking simply historical reasons though ... - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
