Sam Ruby wrote, On 06/06/2003 18.54:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:...
Why is this not pursued?
IMHO, things need some focus in order to avoid becoming unbounded, like sourceforge. Keeping Jakarta commons to small reusable components that actually are used by Jakarta projects seems to provide the right level of focus.
I agree. Hence IMHO Commons should do the same.
There also is a notion of 'closeness' that I think is relevant. Does your community have a park? Mine does. I think the nature of the location would change if it were made a national park.
Hmmm... In what sense?
Or perhaps it simply is inertia. As you point out, Jakarta commons appears to be working.
IMHO it simply _works_.
Imagine that this Commons does not exists. Imagine that the existing Jakarta Commons becomes a TLP with it's PMCers. Imagine that current Apache Commons PMCers are elected after that... and you have an idea of what I feel, that is "build on what works", which is JC.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote, On 06/06/2003 17.52:
We have offered them to move to this ASF commons, but they (IIRC,
Costin was the most vocal opponent) adamantly refused to have anything to do with the ASF top-level commons and wanted to stay within the protection of the Jakarta PMC.
But if this PMC accepts all the guys from JC? This would only work IMHO is JC was able to continue to self-asses itself as it has always done.
*This* commons is not about language-specific code. Jakarta commons is only about Java code. Therefore, for the goals others have in mind (such as myself), the Jakarta commons isn't large enough in scope to do what we want it to do.
Put Jakarta Commons as Commons. Exactly same committer, exactly same PMCers. Hey, now you can come in. It's the opposite IMHO that scares and brings FUD over how the project will be managed.
Keep in mind that Jakarta Commons had already expressed that they wanted that any ASF committer had access to the sandbox.
It's wierd, given that many say a sandbox isn't needed ;-)
If any Jakarta commons project wished to move over here, I'd be a very big +1 as a PMC member.
Note that Greg and I have discussed moving serf over fairly soon. We'll probably do that in a few weeks, but there's a technical thing we need to fix/implement in Subversion first. -- justin
Ok, but the problem will remain.
First of all, there is a big question if Commons is really needed with the actual mission. What *need* does Apache Commons solve that other Commons cannot?
Let me explain.
- Jakarta has Jakarta Commons. - Xml has xml-commons. - DB has db-commons. - Almost all projects I know of have a sandbox/scrathpad.
Why?
It seems that Sam is right, locality is important.
Hmmm... but if this is right? If Jakarta will keep its Commons, if Xml will keep its commons, if DB will keep its commons... what will Apache Commons be?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------