On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> 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. The committers are the chief consumers :) At least, Apache Commons seems to have the same concepts as Jakarta Commons in that respect, that ASF projects are the chief consumers with external consumers being a major bonus point. ie) APR exists for ASF C projects, and not for C in general. > 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. I hope it's not over. It's a classic information architecture problem, a 2 dimensional index. A bit more complex because info architects rarely worry about mailing lists. I'm firmly in the camp that I don't want to shovel through lots of emails in 'languages' I don't understand each morning. Be it German or C, both of which I need a book to speak happily. > > 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. Yep. Can we evangelize these to the rest of ASF? Maybe the solution to the Jakarta Commons charter inaccuracy is to make ASF Commons be the solution that works. While it would have been political to have named Jakarta/Xml Commons as the new ASF Commons, the dominance of the Java coders would have probably kept the rest out, in much the same way that ASF Commons' lack of active Java makes it hard for Jakarta to envision what life will be like there.
