On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:51:17AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I think most of us agree on the major points within Robert's prior thread.
> In
> my mind, two questions remain:
I didn't get a chance to respond to that thread, though I've now read it.
A belated +1. We started to discuss a topical division, as seen in various
notes in the STATUS file.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/STATUS
> 1. What are the 'functional groupings' that we'd like to organize around?
This is solely determined by the codebases which want to move in. I don't
see a need to "prefill" groups unless and until somebody wants to fill one.
>...
> So far, I've heard (from Stephen):
> - XML
> - HTTP/HTML/Networking
I'd suggest that serf fall into one of two possible groups:
* networking
* networking clients
I'd prefer the former, as I doubt that we're going to need a division
between general networking components, and network client components.
There is also a very real possibility of serf operating as a listener
rather than just a client.
> - Database
> - Enterprise
> - Pooling
>
> Here's my commentary on the above:
> - XML: Should this be under xml.apache.org instead?
I'm with Henri on this one. Nope. If an XML or Database component wants to
come here, then it should be perfectly welcome. I also agree with the
sentiment of encouraging *all* TLP-commons projects to come here.
[ my "evil plan" as Sam refers to it :-) ]
No need to force, but I think a big point is that we can organize the
groups much better than the multi-TLP approach, and the huge bandwidth
problem that jakarta-commons has [because of a lack of topical division].
>...
> As far as the ownership, I don't profess to know what the right thing is
> here.
> What is the right thing for the XML and Database projects to own? Perhaps we
Any component they want can be placed there. But the notion of a "commons"
is a bit strange in each TLP. Either is is a full-fledged component of the
TLP with full-on oversight, or it resides here with our particular
oversight. But the "extra layer of commons" that some of the TLPs have is
a cause for concern in my book.
> should create a dialogue with the appropriate PMCs? However, before doing
> that, I'd like to know what the candidate projects are. What exactly are we
> thinking of that would be 'database' and/or 'XML'?
I don't even think we should worry about the topical groupings *until* we
get components "on the way".
At this point, only serf is here. I don't know of any others where their
communities have said "we want to move". If there *are*, then the STATUS
file should be updated to include information on that component, and to
give a chance for the PMC to decide suitability/acceptance.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
