Jeff Turner wrote: > So IMHO the charter needs careful changing where it deals with utility > code, to retain the emphasis on stability and reusability, but not > limit "reusability" to mean "reusability within xml.apache.org > projects". > There are many, many types of XML-related projects out there in the > real world. Just because a utility isn't needed in the 10 or so > projects at xml.apache.org, doesn't mean it's not a completely > general, useful utility in it's own right. That's the crux: is > xml-commons intended to serve xml.apache.org members when writing > *any* XML-related code, or *only* when they're working on > xml.apache.org projects? The former, I would hope.
Personally I would prefer xml-commons to contain only cross-project code and a own project "xml-tools" for general-use tools not directly used in a xml.apache.org project. But storing these tools separated from the cross-project code is fine with me. IIRC we had this discussion already in Dec 2001 or Jan2002 and decided that tools of broad use can be included in the xml-commons project. Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Red Hat Linux for low memory: http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/rule/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/
