On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:28:11PM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > The current status document states that it is resolved that a-c is language > agnostic. There is no statement however about how a-c will manage the > multiple languages. So I've been musing... > > 1) One sub-project of a-c for each language, with each component effectively > a sub-sub-project within the language (eg. > commons.apache.org/java/collections) >
I think this will ultimately end up in more little fiefdoms, but I could and probably am wrong. > 2) One sub-project for each component ignoring language (eg. > commons.apache.org/collections). But then what happens if that component is > implemented in two languages? > Why not 3) concern areas, like your mailing list suggestions: xml serialization, http clients, language libraries (the biggest thing that is missing in most languages), etc? > This affects many things - how the mailing lists are structured, how the > website is structured, how the communities will form, etc. > > I would like to see some clarification on this. The key aspect to me seems > to be the mailing list one: > > Does it help to have C/C#/D/Perl/PHP/Java components on a shared mailing > list? IMHO it does from the standpoint that for instance, NTLM authentication affects both serf and httpclient, and I have seen myself learning things from those people well-versed in other languages on algorithms and such. > Or is per language better? -0.9 I would rather see no division (first preference), or a division not along language boundaries. But, then again, I might just be smoking the really good fairy dust :) > Or maybe we should have more mailing lists? A possibility, but then cross-posting might go up when the subject slightly shifts. -0 here. > > For example new mailing list groups could be formed along these lines: > a) Collections, IO, Lang, Pattern, Util, BeanUtils components from j-c (a > 'Java core' list) > b) Betwixt, Digester from j-c, and components from XML-Commons (an 'XML' > list) > c) HttpClient and Net from j-c (a 'Networking' list) > d) Catch all for smaller components and the sandbox > (please don't debate the details of which component is in which (yet), its > an example!) This is a pretty good idea, IMHO. Just throw the language-agnostic stuff in, and you are good to go :) -- Scott Sanders - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
