Hi Oleg, In general I think this looks good. I have a few questions/suggestions:
- We should probably be a little more clear regarding naming. For example I would state that Jakarta HTTP Components is one possible name, but that we are open for suggestions. We also want to be more clear regarding the future of the HttpClient name. My impression is that we will keep the name and release an HTTP client (called HttpClient) built from the components. - We should also work on the wording of the following statement: "Jakarta Http Components project DOES NOT define an application API on top of the low level transport API". If I'm reading you correctly you're trying to allay the fears of those who think we're creating a new servlet API, right? We do however plan to release a client side API (HttpClient), but this line could be read to preclude that. What do you think? I should have some time tomorrow evening for writing, assuming we want to make these changes. Thanks, Mike On 9/11/05, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > There has been no new input regarding the new project charter for quite > a while. Does this mean the proposed draft largely represents the vision > of the HttpClient community of what the project should be like and what > we should be concerned with? Do you need more time to think things over? > Do you think we are ready to present the case before the Jakarta PMC? > Please share your ideas. > > Oleg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
