On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I too have found j-c a little overwhelming recently, and now delete mails > much quicker than I used to. This proposal pretty much covers what a-c needs > to do to encurage transfers. Ah, it's not just me. > I suppose I object to #4, language agnostic, most. The coding I do in [lang] > or [collections] strikes me as very java specific. But since there aren't > any non-Java projects that I know of that would clash, I guess this group > would probably become effectively Java only anyway. Agreed. > So, my proposed first group would be 'core'. This discussion has been > controversial at j-c before, but there are probably some components that > naturally fit this tag - [lang], [collections], [io]. Others could then be > considered later. This is where I think problems might arise. 'core' is a language concept in that different languages have different ideas of core. Is IO really a core concept in every language, or its own concept? Should APR be considered the C-Core, and then J-Core would be a similar feature-set, except the JDK offers a lot of APR so maybe APR needs more, regexp etc [not that I have a clue what's in APR]. Java 1.2 does not have an XML parser, but 1.4 does, so XML usage is 'core' if we rely on 1.4+ but not 1.2+. > Other possible groupings: > - xml > - http/html/networking > - database > - enterprise > - pooling > The biggest problem will occur with components that don't naturally fit a > group, or fit more than one. But having some kind of divide is going to be > necessary. Put them in both. Is there any reason to make the division concept one-to-one? The one thing I liked about Brian Behlendorf's original 'kill-the-language-focus' email was that he suggested that projects could be classified under multiple functionalities. A.Commons seems the perfect place to test this out. In pipe-dream mode, I think this is a huge information architecture exercise. We have cross-referenced projects under various functionalities, where one functionality is a language [or languages]. We also need cross-referenced mailing lists to reflect the web-presence, and I'm not sure if mailing-list technology is up to this. CVS/Subversion needs to be hidden behind a common user-interface, with advanced versions for extra things. End pipe-dream mode :) Hen
