On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:15, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > 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.
Thats because thats what the PMC encourages (you included). If you recall at one stage LogKit was proposed as a jakarta project - before Log4j was present but the PMC decided to bring Log4j to jakarta instead. When commons was started it was because Avalon did not have the right "advertising". Both of these things were a vote by the PMC to reinvent rather than reuse. The best way to describe it was something I think Craig said, something like - it doesn't much matter if there is an existing project with same aims, what matters is what committers are willing to commit to. It is much more sexier to rewrite something from scratch than it is to work with other peoples code. Why is struts a project? Wouldn't it have been more productive to the Apache community overall to live side-by-side with turbine (same mailing lists and project etc). Essentially struts would have been a complete revolution - having them together would have ensured a much higher level of cross pollination. Why is Log4j at jakarta? Wouldn't be better if it and LogKit were merged? What about the regex engines? > 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. It is going to get far far far worse - everyone encourages it from the PMC down. Reinvent rather than reuse or so the chant goes. > 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. Correct. Commons is also fun because people not involved with the code have voting rights over it. However I do recall you +1'ed it even when I said it would end up like this ;) > 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. Thats because people don't want it. More than half the people at jakarta are egomaniacs. Not that this is a bad thing - it can be very productive but very few people want to work together because they can get more glory doing it themselves. > 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. If thats what you consider broken then it is broken and it is going to get much more broken. The only way to change this is to to vote it. Next time someone raises a vote to duplicate an existing project don't +1 it. And don't just complain when someone duplicates a part of turbine. I would to love to see more working together but I can't see it happening. People are not willing to work together - even for basic things. When I asked you to change turbines build system to not conflict with patterns in other projects your response was something along the lines. We used ant first, this is how you should do it, you are wrong - and thats basically when I stopped trying to get people to have standard build file format. You say you want to "fix" jakarta then prove it - lets start working together to get even the basic infrastructure common where they interface with other projects. So the ball is in your court now ;) BTW turbine is/has uploaded components to commons that are duplicates of Avalon functionality. ie the exact same thing that happened with validators except that turbine is the "purp" rather than the "victim" - so should I wail at you now ? ;) -- Cheers, Pete -------------------------------------------------------------- "Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it" -- Richard Feynman -------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
