I've nothing against DB Commons, but it seems that it ought to just be a part of Apache Commons. With the assumption that someday Jakarta Commons will end up as part of Apache Commons.
Code will end up where the committers feel best. I don't think we need to force anything. For the ASF projects I'm involved in, there is *no* Commons or sandbox. So, I see the purpose of Commons as providing a home to 'reusable components' irrespective of language or purpose.
The biggest problem Apache Commons has right now I think is that it doesn't offer anything to the Commons coder. What does Apache Commons have over Xml, DB and Jakarta Commons for me as a consumer.
What does DB Commons provide?
The question becomes where is the stronger tie: the purpose of the code, or the fact that it is reusable? I think if the code is primarily reusable and isn't tied directly to a project under scope, then it should end up in Commons.
A reusable Servlet container may belong in Jakarta Commons, but does a thread pool system belong in Jakarta? Unlikely, as I don't think it has any relevance to Jakarta's mission. (Threads are often used in client code.)
situations than they would a simple(!) java mail server. Thus the concept of 'Commons coders' was born. Jakarta coders who are not on a particular Jakarta project but solely exist because of a re-usable component(s).
This to me, means that they belong under the ASF Commons instead.
The next step for these coders is to create more re-usable components. However, these were not created by a Jakarta project, and have no internal community. They don't feel very Apache-y.
Aha, but that's where the Commons fits. -- justin
