The Guidelines of the commons charter has some guidance here: http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html

  1. The primary unit of reuse and release is the package.
  2. The package library is not a framework but a collection of
     components designed to be used independently.
  3. Each package must have a clearly defined purpose, scope, and API
     -- Do one thing well, and keep your contracts.
  4. ...


HttpClient is generally concerned with URLs but URIs are useful beyond HttpClient. URIs are well documented with relevent RFCs. I think that a seperate RFC conforming URI package would be an excellent addition to Jakarta.


A project of this nature should copy the current code from httpclient and start a sandbox project. Development should continue there untill development has been proven and a formal commons project proposal can be made.

Likely the developers would want to seek HttpClient as a key user of the new package, but this does not mandate that HttpClient will use the new package. Nor does it require that a jar dependancy be added (re-use can be achieved in multiple ways) but the new codebase could be re-used in other ways if that was deemed preferable.

I would support having a seperate URI package. From my perspective the possible benefits are clear and the possible drawbacks are avoidable.

Jandalf.


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to