Jon,
I share precisely the same concerns. Thank you for standing up on this issue. What do you suggest we do? I mean concretely. My first suggestion would be to stop creating new projects, starting *today*. If someone wants to contribute code, they do that within the framework of an *existing* project. If that is not possible, then they do it somewhere else. Regards, Ceki At 14:15 06.01.2002 -0800, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: >on 1/6/02 1:45 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jon, I presume that you are talking about the subject, and not the text you >> are quoting. In any case, a framework independent validator seems to me to >> be valuable a reusable component. If one or both can't be restructed to be >> framework independent, then that would seem to be a reasonable explanation >> for the duplication. If both can, then merging of the best of both here in >> commons would seem to be the wisest path. > >I don't see why the basis isn't Intake. Why not work to move Intake to >commons and then work towards a framework independent implementation in >Commons? > >Of course it is easier to start from scratch to invent yet another >validation framework. This is where I see another failure of Jakarta. People >only go with the easiest route without any concern about the long term mess >they are making. > >I feel like Jakarta is just going down this path of having a bazillion >different implementations and versions of the same thing and it is only >getting worse. Commons was supposed to help clean that up by providing a >central location, however all I see is it making it worse because people are >just re-inventing what already exists in other projects instead of using >existing projects as the basis. > >A perfect example of this recently was the discussion about Torque. Hey, >Torque exists, but it is *easier* to re-invent it rather than simply spend >the time to figure it out, understand it and move it to commons (or a top >level project). > >I'm starting to realize that Jakarta has grown to becoming a place where >people only scratch their own itches and I agree that that is the basis for >open source. However, we have no overall direction. We all have our own >opinions and spend days and days discussing them and when it comes down to >putting code into CVS, people do whatever they want anyway because there is >no set of checks and balances to put some sort of higher level control over >things. > >In Java Apache, these issues never came up because there were only a few >projects and a few people expressing their opinions. Now, Jakarta has grown >into literally hundreds of people expressing their opinions and doing what >they want. Commons has become an area where people have a free CVS commit >tree to put whatever they want into it, which is fine, however these people >doing the commits haven't spent the time to do things as simple as figuring >out what the proper way to format code according to the Jakarta rules. > >People keep saying that Jakarta isn't broken. Well, if it isn't broken, then >how come we have so many people doing their own thing and not working >together? Jakarta is supposed to be a group collective, however it is >becoming nothing more than another Sourceforge. > >-jon > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
