From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think the ultimate question here is what organization best benefits the > committers. Huh! Is this not very self centered? Surely we should be asking what is best for ours customers/users.
My problem with Commons remains its cross-language aims, and I have always disagreed with division by functionality. (For example start thinking about what the website home page will be like. It will have an introduction and then a list of Java components, and a list of Perl components and a list of C# components....... No way is that ever serving the users well.) The multi-language battle seems to be lost however, but the battle for location of Java common code is still not settled. So I can still resist any move of j-c to a multi-language area. > Where there is not a strong tie to another Jakarta project, I > firmly believe that the Jakarta Commons model causes exactly what Henri > described: > > > 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. > > I think we (as in the ASF) can do better. I think a project that is > specifically tailored to this developer audience is required. One that > cultivates new reusable libraries that people can use and improve. Yes, its called Jakarta Commons. Java reusable components. Now thats not what the charter says, but thats how it operates nowadays. Jakarta== Java. Stephen
