Tim Vernum wrote:
>
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > See if you can summarize your case, bucause I am not following you. I
> > don't see why this collection of tools, which clearly are needed since
> > people are making them on their own, is inappropriate for commons.
>
> I don't assume to speak for Vincent, but the impression I get is this:
>
> Your argument for collecting these tools together is that "people find
> these useful for building web-apps".
>
> However, for at least some of those tools, the actual situation is that
> "people find these useful for lots of tasks".
>
> I would certainly expect that some of the tools that will end up in Rupert
> will equally useful for people using Ant/Rhino/ejbs/whatever.
>
> Is Rupert the right type of catch-all for these?
>
> My point of view is that commons probably needs a number of "catch-alls"
> for small tools. Putting these tools into Rupert is fine, but if/when
> they are found to be useful outside of web-apps, they should be
> refactored into a more general collection.
I agree. One of the things I hope to see is that we make a very careful
effort to make these tools as free from specific templating technologies
as possible so they are useful to the widest possible audience (within
reason). And when there is no way around it, keep the related stuff
together (rupert.velocuty, rupert.webmacro, rupert.jsp). If we do that,
then we can make the generic parts separately buildable, or pull them
out entirely.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
You have a genius for suggesting things I've come a cropper with!
