RE: [Off Language] Re our recent bracing war

[Andrew C. Oliver]

For my own personal brace style I have adopted the K&R are right rule.
I have brace tolerance though.  (just like I have "_variable"
tolerance).  There is one thing I have no tolerance for though:  low
quality.  (This is why I don't drink cheap American beer like that bad
knock off of the Czech Budvar that most people drink because its a
buck... Can you believe they have to sell it here as Czechvar!?)

-Andy
-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Paulo Gaspar]

Well, I did learn how to change a Jakarta web page!
This time the theory, next time the patch!
=:o)

Have fun,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 6:45 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)
> 
> 
> on 1/7/02 9:05 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > No karma
> 
> Submit a patch.
> 
> >, no clue on how to change a Jakarta web page!
> 
> RTFM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well, Geir did your work for you, so you don't learn anything.
> 
> -jon
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

[Off Language] Re our recent bracing war

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

 
 Found it amusing, especially #8.
 
 http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/ten-commandments.html

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"We will be judged not by the monuments we build, but by the monuments we
destroy" - Ada Louise Huxtable


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 9:05 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No karma

Submit a patch.

>, no clue on how to change a Jakarta web page!

RTFM




Oh well, Geir did your work for you, so you don't learn anything.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Paulo Gaspar]

COOL!
=:o)

> -Original Message-
> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 6:03 AM
> 
> 
> On 1/8/02 12:05 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > No karma, no clue on how to change a Jakarta web page!
> > =:o/
> > 
> > But at least puting the URL on the list should be a couple of
> > minutes for someone who does know.
> 
> Done.
> 
> > 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/8/02 12:05 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No karma, no clue on how to change a Jakarta web page!
> =:o/
> 
> But at least puting the URL on the list should be a couple of
> minutes for someone who does know.

Done.

> 
> 
> Have fun,
> Paulo
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:05 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)
>> 
>> 
>> on 1/7/02 7:59 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> What about just a version of this form:
>>>  http://search.apache.org/
>>> 
>>> or a link to it???
>>> 
>>> Take a look at my previous posting (the "crushed" thread) for more
>>> details. It can be made (hidden fields I love you) to search any
>>> sub-domain just by changing its HTML.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Have fun,
>>> Paulo Gaspar
>> 
>> Ok Paulo, do it. Make it happen.
>> 
>> -jon
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"Now what do we do?"


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Proposal: Component survey

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/7/02 11:49 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jeff Turner typed the following on 03:16 PM 1/8/2002 +1100
>>   This will be a dynamic catalog, like Bugzilla and Jyve,
>>   similar in functionality to download.com, cpan.org, or
>>   SourceForge.net.  New entries may be added by Jakarta committers,
>>   developers, and users.  Entries by developers and users will be
>>   approved by a committer before being made public."
> ...
>> So if you want to do this, Commons is the place to do it. I volunteer to
>> do the Avalon bits (Berin outlined the reusable stuff recently).
> 
> Writing a dynamic catalog sounds like too much work for this purpose,
> unless anyone can suggest a package to use. An XML file in jakarta-site2,
> while not as searchable as a dynamic solution, will be a snap to implement,
> and fulfill all of the requirements other than being dynamic (i.e. the normal
> patch process allows anyone to add an entry, while requiring committer
> approval).
> 
> I've already started on a file to get the format worked out. Using the current
> vsl template for the jakarta site doesn't look like the way to go: it requires
> hand 
> coding the table, which muddles the presentation with the data too much for
> my liking. A formatting-free XML data file for the components list would make
> it easy to build different "sortings" of the data, e.g. list by project and by
> functional categories.
> 
> Does anyone object to my making a separate template, probably splitting
> common formatting into an include file?



It would be interesting to see if we can use DVSL to transform your
formatting free XML data into something that works via the VSL.  I'll help
if you are interested.  Feel free to say no :)



-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Be a giant.  Take giant steps.  Do giant things...


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Paulo Gaspar]

No karma, no clue on how to change a Jakarta web page!
=:o/

But at least puting the URL on the list should be a couple of 
minutes for someone who does know.


Have fun,
Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 5:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)
> 
> 
> on 1/7/02 7:59 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > What about just a version of this form:
> >  http://search.apache.org/
> > 
> > or a link to it???
> > 
> > Take a look at my previous posting (the "crushed" thread) for more
> > details. It can be made (hidden fields I love you) to search any
> > sub-domain just by changing its HTML.
> > 
> > 
> > Have fun,
> > Paulo Gaspar
> 
> Ok Paulo, do it. Make it happen.
> 
> -jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/7/02 11:20 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> on 1/7/02 8:10 PM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> I agree with Sam here - you have to buy into the Gump nags and understand
>> the value, or you are going to think it's an intrusive fussyness, which it
>> is, actually :)
> 
> Or you could think of it this way...
> 
> Part of the 'privilege' of being able to host your project on Jakarta is the
> requirement of needing to accept our way of doing things. Of course being
> dictators about everything isn't going to work...things like forcing
> everyone to use OSX and a certain IDE definitely won't fly...
> 
> However, when there are areas where we know damn well that something is the
> right way to do things (such as using the ASF license, using Gump's nag
> features, having javadocs targets and being consistent in using documented
> code formatting), that is part of being part of the Jakarta Community and
> the group of people who 'get it'. It is part of being in a larger community
> collective and sharing some similar values and development principles.
> 

Yep - but you have to bring these things to the community by consensus.  For
example, new things were learned as Gump evolved. (And are still being
learned today)

Now, you added the nag.pl, but that was by fiat, wasn't it?  Not in a bad
way - you saw something and took the initiative - but others didn't
understand right away.

After a while, it became accepted, even cherished.

(Who am I kidding - Gump is never cherished - that just made for good copy.
It's a pain in the neck, annoying, written in ugly pointy bracket stuff, and
insanely valuable :)

> That is what should make us different than Sourceforge...

Fine, but it comes from consensus, doesn't it?  I can't suppose that I can
tell you about that - you were/are my 'mentor' in most of this - but I hope
that you can step back and at least consider that the failure is our own if
we can't rally around a set of common mores.

Why are we failing?  I am suspicious of our size :)

> -jon
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Be a giant.  Take giant steps.  Do giant things...


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Proposal: Component survey

[Kief Morris]

Jeff Turner typed the following on 03:16 PM 1/8/2002 +1100
>   This will be a dynamic catalog, like Bugzilla and Jyve,
>   similar in functionality to download.com, cpan.org, or
>   SourceForge.net.  New entries may be added by Jakarta committers,
>   developers, and users.  Entries by developers and users will be
>   approved by a committer before being made public."
...
>So if you want to do this, Commons is the place to do it. I volunteer to
>do the Avalon bits (Berin outlined the reusable stuff recently).

Writing a dynamic catalog sounds like too much work for this purpose,
unless anyone can suggest a package to use. An XML file in jakarta-site2, 
while not as searchable as a dynamic solution, will be a snap to implement, 
and fulfill all of the requirements other than being dynamic (i.e. the normal 
patch process allows anyone to add an entry, while requiring committer 
approval).

I've already started on a file to get the format worked out. Using the current
vsl template for the jakarta site doesn't look like the way to go: it requires hand 
coding the table, which muddles the presentation with the data too much for 
my liking. A formatting-free XML data file for the components list would make 
it easy to build different "sortings" of the data, e.g. list by project and by 
functional categories.

Does anyone object to my making a separate template, probably splitting 
common formatting into an include file? 

Kief


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: proposal for the jakarta startpage

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/7/02 12:53 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 15:39, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Shouldn't tomcat and httpd be in the same category?
> 
> different technologies (ie c vs java).
 
 So what?  You didn't think that mattered before.
>>> 
>>> what are you talking about ? When have I said merging incompatible
>>> communities never mattered ?
>> 
>> Good try.  You said that the technologies don't matter (you even say it
>> above :)
> 
> Sigh .. I need some of those Cheshire cat skills.
> 
> The point I was trying to get across was this. I assumed you were being
> facetious ? no?

In some ways, no - I think it was stefano that said something to the order
of removing all artificial containers surrounding projects or groups of
projects.

I think that if we looked at that, we might discover that governance of
something like that would be challenging (governance could be entirely
self-governance : no implications of any sort intended...)

> 
> I don't really care that tomcat has a native connector and daemon
> architecture, nor do I care whether xerces has a c version. Why ? Because
> they are the same community. Presumably you don't think Pier is not part of
> the tomcat project - yet he did write a c daemon architecture (and some of
> the connectors?) - does that mean his work should not be part of jakarta ?

No - this paragraph above reaches back to my unanswered questions about the
real meaning of the charter, of which a clarification was suggested which
you agreed to (removing "server"), but then I noted we would still be out of
scope (beaause of "java").

I don't care about the tech either - I mean, much of Gump is XSL, right?

I was being a bit facetious earlier on the Alexandria list - note that The
Law specifies that all code be documented according to javadoc coding
conventions.  If Sam wishes to remain in compliance with the law, his XSL
Gump code needs to be documented that way (which I don't believe possible).

My point is that the constant appeal to codified law sometimes misses the
spirit of the law, and allows it to be used as a club, which I don't like. I
admit it is my personality to err on the side of 'chaos' away from the law,
but still.

> The PHP/Perl/TCL/Httpd people on average have little involvement in the java
> development scene is my guess - I certainly haven't seen any huge crosstalk
> between them and jakarta - have you ?

Never.

I also will say I haven't seen community crosstalk between XML and Jakarta,
from the point of view as communities.  I know there are individuals who
contribute greatly to both communities, and many of us here in Jakarta
depend on XML projects.  But in the sense of us really having discussion of
cross-community issues, the only one I can recall seeing is Stefano's
request to disband PMCs because of his  issues with XML's.

  
> Because they work on different technologies there is unlikely to emerge any
> great collaborative works between developers as often developers specialize
> in development approach (ie java).
> 
> Technologies don't matter - communitys do.

I agree - I think my statement was "Charter doesn't matter - the community
does"...

>It would be pointless to merge
> disconnected communities when there is no community incentive to do so. The
> community is unlikely to form between groups of developers who work on
> different technologies if there is little common ground.  xerces c developers
> presumably have common ground with their java counterparts, Pier presumably
> has common ground with the other tomcat developers.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 8:10 PM, "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I agree with Sam here - you have to buy into the Gump nags and understand
> the value, or you are going to think it's an intrusive fussyness, which it
> is, actually :)

Or you could think of it this way...

Part of the 'privilege' of being able to host your project on Jakarta is the
requirement of needing to accept our way of doing things. Of course being
dictators about everything isn't going to work...things like forcing
everyone to use OSX and a certain IDE definitely won't fly...

However, when there are areas where we know damn well that something is the
right way to do things (such as using the ASF license, using Gump's nag
features, having javadocs targets and being consistent in using documented
code formatting), that is part of being part of the Jakarta Community and
the group of people who 'get it'. It is part of being in a larger community
collective and sharing some similar values and development principles.

That is what should make us different than Sourceforge...

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Proposal: Component survey

[Jeff Turner]

This idea was (is) part of the Commons charter:

  "(1.5.2) the directory 

   The subproject will also catalog packages and other resources
   available to the public related to other Jakarta subprojects and ASF
   projects.  This will be a dynamic catalog, like Bugzilla and Jyve,
   similar in functionality to download.com, cpan.org, or
   SourceForge.net.  New entries may be added by Jakarta committers,
   developers, and users.  Entries by developers and users will be
   approved by a committer before being made public."

   -- http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/charter.html


So if you want to do this, Commons is the place to do it. I volunteer to
do the Avalon bits (Berin outlined the reusable stuff recently).

--Jeff


On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 05:19:48AM +0200, Kief Morris wrote:
> I've been meaning to trawl through the jakarta subprojects looking for 
> components that could be suitable for using in a project of mine. It
> occurs to me that having an inventory of components could be a useful
> thing for Jakarta, both for general developers who may be overwhelmed
> by what's there, and to make Jakarta subproject developers more aware
> of what's available so they can avoid duplication.
...
> Kief

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/7/02 11:03 PM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> on 1/7/02 7:27 PM, "Tim Vernum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> If the project won't deal with gump nags, and can't keep their
>> builds from breaking then they probably won't fit into Jakarta.
> 
> Bingo. Great point.
> 
> However, forcing a project to have gump nags is not something Sam is willing
> to dictate. Having a project that 'fits into Jakarta' is also something no
> one is willing to dictate (except me of course...but that means nothing
> anymore...)...
> 
> -jon
> 

I agree with Sam here - you have to buy into the Gump nags and understand
the value, or you are going to think it's an intrusive fussyness, which it
is, actually :)

I think most people buy into it and get it.

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the
freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 7:59 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What about just a version of this form:
>  http://search.apache.org/
> 
> or a link to it???
> 
> Take a look at my previous posting (the "crushed" thread) for more
> details. It can be made (hidden fields I love you) to search any
> sub-domain just by changing its HTML.
> 
> 
> Have fun,
> Paulo Gaspar

Ok Paulo, do it. Make it happen.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 7:27 PM, "Tim Vernum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If the project won't deal with gump nags, and can't keep their
> builds from breaking then they probably won't fit into Jakarta.

Bingo. Great point.

However, forcing a project to have gump nags is not something Sam is willing
to dictate. Having a project that 'fits into Jakarta' is also something no
one is willing to dictate (except me of course...but that means nothing
anymore...)...

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Proposal: Component survey

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 7:19 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Despite these problems, I think it'd be worth having around.

Then take the reigns and just do it the way that you think it should be
done. No need for a proposal.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 7:30 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think Jon is undervaluing Jakarta because he helped creating it and
> he is comparing what it is with what he dreamed it would be. Things tend
> not to work according to our high expectations.

I'm sure that is very true.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Paulo Gaspar]

What about just a version of this form:
   http://search.apache.org/

or a link to it???

Take a look at my previous posting (the "crushed" thread) for more
details. It can be made (hidden fields I love you) to search any
sub-domain just by changing its HTML.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)
>
>
> on 1/7/02 6:26 PM, "Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The idea of a Jakarta code search engine has arisen a few times. Any
> > lucene or alexandria developers care to comment? Cocoon docs are already
> > searchable apparently, though this functionality isn't online.
> >
> > Alternatively, a simple link to Google (restricted by
> > site:jakarta.apache.org) from the front page might help.
> >
> > --Jeff
>
> Good suggestion! Maybe setting up LXR would also be a cool idea.
>
> Not sure how much it will help since people have a hard enough
> time figuring
> out how to format code and send mail to the right mailing list... :-)
>
> That said, I'm sure there is a lot of stuff to learn from Mozilla.org as
> well. They seem pretty successful and have much larger numbers
> than us. :-)
>
> -jon
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: crushed

[Paulo Gaspar]

> That is because I don't see a way to fix the problems and I'm not sure I
> have the energy to actually go through with it anymore.

Did you ever run or walk a Marathon? Or just 20 Km?
Or swim 10Km?

It is one step (or stroke) after the other or you get too tired just by
thinking about it.


> I haven't seen you give any positive initiative's either. People say I
> contribute a lot around here. Why does it always have to be me?

It does not have to be you.

And I do not have to give a new idea since:
 - Sam's idea looks good enough for checking code style and nagging the
   offenders;

 - Stefano work on Forrest might improve a lot the site. It will take a
   couple of months for xml.apache to talk jakarta into it, have a couple
   of flame wars, adapting tools and layouts, etc... 
   But the first step is taken and we all just need a bit of good will;
   
 - Someone already suggested (sorry, forgot whom!) having a search engine
   to help on finding information in Apache.
   Obvious solution, placing at the Jakarta home page:
 - A REALLY VISIBLE LINK TO http://search.apache.org/
 - A simplified version of the form in that URL.
   (It is simple to shorten that form so that it only searches in
Jakarta, or xml.apache, or Jakarta + xml.apache, etc.
   )

   Even if this did not exist (and considering the problems of putting 
   Lucene on an Apache BSD server) we could even use Google!
   It looks like they are keeping their indexes on Apache up to date 
   (the new home page is indexed) and they have a free solution:
  http://www.google.com/services/free.html

  
So, I think there are already a few solutions for the most immediate 
problems.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
   

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 3:00 AM
> 
> on 1/7/02 5:10 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I see you crying a lot over this but no POSITIVE initiative.
> 
> That is because I don't see a way to fix the problems and I'm not sure I
> have the energy to actually go through with it anymore.
> 
> I haven't seen you give any positive initiative's either. People say I
> contribute a lot around here. Why does it always have to be me?
> 
> -jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: crushed

[Tim Vernum]

> Perhaps like Commons, there should be an open proving ground 
> for those wishing to make steps into the Apache world.

Probably not what you had in mind, but adding the project to
the gump run would be a start.

All sorts of monitoring goes on then, including prompting from 
the gump-er (ie Sam) to fix things that break.
I know Sam (et al) have + will provide patches to other projects
to bring their build systems up to scratch.

It's a start at having the external community work with the
Jakarta community(/ies), which seems to be the primary concern.

If the project won't deal with gump nags, and can't keep their
builds from breaking then they probably won't fit into Jakarta.


NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain copyright material of 
Macquarie Bank or third parties. If you are not the intended recipient of this email 
you should not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail or 
any attachments, and should destroy all copies of them. Macquarie Bank does not 
guarantee the integrity of any emails or any attached files. The views or opinions 
expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie 
Bank. 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Proposal: Component survey

[Kief Morris]

I've been meaning to trawl through the jakarta subprojects looking for 
components that could be suitable for using in a project of mine. It
occurs to me that having an inventory of components could be a useful
thing for Jakarta, both for general developers who may be overwhelmed
by what's there, and to make Jakarta subproject developers more aware
of what's available so they can avoid duplication.

So I'm proposing to put together a list of components. This is more than
the projects list on the home page, since it's an attempt to delve into 
functionality built by subprojects which aren't necessarily considered 
products. Examples include validator packaging, pooling, etc. This
isn't limited to things which are neatly packaged for reuse, or even
necessarily completely functional: it's code that has been written for
the subproject which might be applicable for other projects.

The methodology would be to get developers from each subprojects
to throw out lists of applicable code, and I will coalate it and make
a page for the site. I can't promise it will be speedily done, due to
time constraints, but if anyone wants to pitch in to get it done more
quickly, that'd be cool by me.

Risks:

- Maintenance will be a bitch, chances are it will be out of date most
  of the time. I'll try to revisit it from time to time, and of course people
  should update it themselves (or submit patches) as they find stuff
  that needs to be added or changed.

- This won't solve the problem of duplication, which still requires 
  developers to do extra work to make code reusable, forgoe reinventing 
  code, not to mention actually thinking to review the list before launching
  into new code. But it should at least raise awareness.

Despite these problems, I think it'd be worth having around.

Info we'd need on each component (comments and suggestions, please?):
- Title (a short phrase, e.g. "object pooling")
- Description
- Subproject
- Where is it (e.g. package name, class name(s), etc. Doesn't need to be
  comprehensive, just a pointer for someone to find it and start looking at it)
- Dependencies (mainly other projects/external packages, e.g. JDOM)

Kief


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

Ceki, I believe all you say.

However that does not mean that JBoss does better elsewhere than it would
do here.

Jon stated that some non-Apache projects show that there are better ways
of doing Open Source and gave JBoss as an example.

But we just do not know how it would be if they were her.

IMHO, JBoss is much cleaner of nonsense and much easier to get working
than all the other Open Source app servers. That's it - no competition.
It would probably also have no competition at Apache just by having the
same core developers and core orientations (or just most of them).

I just think they always had the best direction by a long way and that
it would be like that anyway.


Orion, although cheap and good, is payware... and I think I would choose
JBoss even if Orion was Open Source (but I am not even 80% sure, much
because Orion isn't OS).


Me thinks Jon must come up with a better example to prove his POV.
Me also thinks it will not be easy since Apache is quite good.

And I am not a Jakarta founder. I took a look around with impartiality.

I think Jon is undervaluing Jakarta because he helped creating it and
he is comparing what it is with what he dreamed it would be. Things tend
not to work according to our high expectations.

I am comparing it with what I see elsewhere.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:36 AM
>
>
> The JBoss guys are very smart. Scott Stark is extremely high
> caliber. Mark is no idiot either. Jboss is successful because it
> is so fucking good. From where I stand, the other appservers are
> just copying JBoss. Where do you think the MBean architecture in
> Weblogic 6.x came from?
>
> The problem with JBoss is that while they innovate BEA and IBM
> make all the dough. Such is the nature of opensource. Bloody fucking hell!
>
> (From what I hear Orion is pretty good too.)
>
> At 02:18 08.01.2002 +0100, you wrote:
> >> Jboss's success seems to be one project. I'm actually glad they went to
> >> sourceforge...they would have struggled to survive here...
> >
> >How can you know?
> >
> >I have studied their code and their documentation some months ago, I
> >have also followed some of their mailling lists for sometime and that is
> >not that obvious to me.
> >
> >I do NOT prefer what they call community. I do not find their code that
> >good. I do not like their documentation that much.
> >
> >JBoss success has a lot to do with the lack of credible alternative for
> >something with a lot of demand, unlike Jakarta products like Tomcat or
> >Velocity.
> >
> >Give me a better case and/or concrete reasons, please.
> >
> >
> >Have fun,
> >Paulo Gaspar


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

Answer inline,

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:18 AM
>
>
> on 1/7/02 5:18 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Jboss's success seems to be one project. I'm actually glad they went to
> >> sourceforge...they would have struggled to survive here...
> >
> > How can you know?
>
> I hosted their project on my servers for the first couple of
> years they were
> alive and have had a boat load of conversations with Marc.

You sure seem to be well informed.
=;o)


> > I have studied their code and their documentation some months ago, I
> > have also followed some of their mailling lists for sometime and that is
> > not that obvious to me.
> >
> > I do NOT prefer what they call community. I do not find their code that
> > good. I do not like their documentation that much.
> >
> > JBoss success has a lot to do with the lack of credible alternative for
> > something with a lot of demand
>
> I think it is more than that though...they have worked to develop a
> community and a LOT of interest. At least that is what their website
> suggests. It could be a result of what you say, but Jakarta's
> success isn't
> necessarily because of our projects or our community...it is
> because of the Apache name behind it.

I think you overvalue Apache's name on that and undervalue the quality of
what is done here.

I "moved" here less than 2 years ago and I believe my POV is more impartial
about that, since I was not immersed on Jakarta since day one as you did.


If you want a detail account of how a newbie arrives and stays at Apache:

The fact that Apache made the famous Apache Web server did not motivate me
to get an immediate adept of its Java stuff at all. I thought:
  "So, they have Java. Having people that know how to make a Web server
   does not mean they know how to do anything else. Probably it is not
   even the same people."

But since I had found Apache's Java page by accident, I decided to take a
look. New to web development, JServ did not impress me at all.

I wanted to use Java since Servlets and JSPs looked much better designed
and easier to use than ISAPI Extensions and ASPs (yes... coming from the
MS platform). Servlets looked even simpler and more powerful than using
Delphi for the ISAPI extensions (I did not even consider using VC++).

Since JServ looked so basic, I went on trying JRun (argh! it sure was
buggy) and Sun's Java Web Server (argh! buggy and heavy and slooowww!!!).

I took a look at a load of other Servlet engines. Some were way too
expensive for what they were worth... or it was just not sure at all
they were worth something at all. Others were too basic or fragile.

Then I found out many people saying that JServ was very robust, found
about Tomcat, tried both and started using JServ (and started getting
into flame wars with Jon about TC 3.3 (o;= ).


So I did not come here because of the Apache name, but because JServ
had its own reputation for robustness and because Tomcat was almost
there. (And I tested and played with Tomcat much more than with JServ
to be sure of that.)


It was the same with all other Java software and source code I am
using. I tried to find alternatives everywhere, used Google, spent
hours digging on Java publications and on source code. In the end
most of what I use is Apache again.


I once had a list of around 10 projects/project-families which Docs
and Source I considered worth checking with some detail after a lot
of pre-selection work (which already included taking a look at bits
of code and reading a lot of docs). Among these project families
were big monsters like JBoss, Exolab, Locomotive, etc. I even
subscribed most JBoss lists and some from Exolab.

In terms of the source code I adapted, everything I ended up using
was Apache. Only recently did I integrate a couple of other classes.
Only one non-Apache project taught me something really meaningful
that I really used. (I learned a lot other stuff, of course. But I
am not using it - most of it is JNDI and otherwise J2EE related.)

In terms of libraries, lets take a look at my "lib" directory...
Sun Java APIs, JDBC drivers, a couple of scripting engines (I
recommend Pnuts - damn fast) and Apache stuff again!

A Search Engine and a Logging API used in my company ended up
coming to Apache - Log4J and Lucene.


I currently use LogKit in my stuff, wrapped by (an adapted)
Avalon's common logging interface. One size does not fit all and,
unless one of them changes a lot, I would rather have both.



That I ended up with Apache for almost everything as nothing to do
with the Apache brand. It just has to do with:
 1 - The quality of the product;
 2 - This crazy and brilliant community.


And yes, my eyes are not closed to the world outside Apache and I
keep checking other tools and libraries. But I end up learning
more about good "outside Apache" tools form Apache related sources
than from all other sources together - whic

Re: Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 6:26 PM, "Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The idea of a Jakarta code search engine has arisen a few times. Any
> lucene or alexandria developers care to comment? Cocoon docs are already
> searchable apparently, though this functionality isn't online.
> 
> Alternatively, a simple link to Google (restricted by
> site:jakarta.apache.org) from the front page might help.
> 
> --Jeff

Good suggestion! Maybe setting up LXR would also be a cool idea.

Not sure how much it will help since people have a hard enough time figuring
out how to format code and send mail to the right mailing list... :-)

That said, I'm sure there is a lot of stuff to learn from Mozilla.org as
well. They seem pretty successful and have much larger numbers than us. :-)

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Jakarta code search engine? (Re: crushed)

[Jeff Turner]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 05:59:51PM -0800, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> on 1/7/02 5:10 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I see you crying a lot over this but no POSITIVE initiative.
> 
> That is because I don't see a way to fix the problems and I'm not sure I
> have the energy to actually go through with it anymore.
> 
> I haven't seen you give any positive initiative's either.

The idea of a Jakarta code search engine has arisen a few times. Any
lucene or alexandria developers care to comment? Cocoon docs are already
searchable apparently, though this functionality isn't online.

Alternatively, a simple link to Google (restricted by
site:jakarta.apache.org) from the front page might help.


--Jeff

> 
> -jon
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 5:10 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I see you crying a lot over this but no POSITIVE initiative.

That is because I don't see a way to fix the problems and I'm not sure I
have the energy to actually go through with it anymore.

I haven't seen you give any positive initiative's either. People say I
contribute a lot around here. Why does it always have to be me?

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 5:41 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> When I was much younger I used to go on BBSes and post "Which is better
> Amiga or IBM?" and "Why not just use a Mac?" to see the fires rage.  As
> I grew up I found more productive ways to spend my time.  Code
> formatting is subjective.  Your way is wrong and mine is right etc etc.
> There are no conclusions to these arguments and have you perfected the
> things that can be perfected to such a degree that you're ready to
> tackle this one? 

 I'm not talking about source code formatting, I'm talking about the issues
surrounding making decisions, documenting those decisions and actually
enforcing those decisions. The source code formatting is just a simple
example of the failure. There are more. A good one that Sam worked on
resolving fairly successfully is the one about Gump. Another issue which I
see as a failure is the failure of projects to communicate with each other.

> I would suggest there be one and only one stead-fast dead on code
> standard.  All public methods must provide javadoc siting the purpose of
> the method.  Get there first then worry about "_variables".

THAT ISN'T THE ISSUE.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Andrew C. Oliver]

> That isn't entirely what I'm asking for (re: singlemindedness and
strict
> control). 

> Part of what I'm asking for is very simple: documentation of the
process and
> then following that process.

> Remember that all of this started with something as simple as source
code
> formatting. We can't even get that right or even anything close to
agreement
> on it.

> -jon

When I was much younger I used to go on BBSes and post "Which is better
Amiga or IBM?" and "Why not just use a Mac?" to see the fires rage.  As
I grew up I found more productive ways to spend my time.  Code
formatting is subjective.  Your way is wrong and mine is right etc etc. 
There are no conclusions to these arguments and have you perfected the
things that can be perfected to such a degree that you're ready to
tackle this one?  

I would suggest there be one and only one stead-fast dead on code
standard.  All public methods must provide javadoc siting the purpose of
the method.  Get there first then worry about "_variables".

-Andy


-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 5:36 PM, "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The JBoss guys are very smart. Scott Stark is extremely high caliber. Mark is
> no idiot either. Jboss is successful because it is so fucking good. From where
> I stand, the other appservers are just copying JBoss. Where do you think the
> MBean architecture in Weblogic 6.x came from?
> 
> The problem with JBoss is that while they innovate BEA and IBM make all the
> dough. Such is the nature of opensource. Bloody fucking hell!
> 
> (From what I hear Orion is pretty good too.)

And just like JSP, it doesn't matter how bad the tool is...if there is
enough people behind it...nothing can stop it...

I actually envy Jboss at this point. They have focus.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Andrew C. Oliver]

> I know it's hard to tell from the convoluted way this thread have gone
> back and forth, but the comment above was not intended to have 
*anything*
> to do with POI specifically, or the proposal to move POI to Apache. 
It
> was a response to Ceki's concern about how to keep Jakarta from being
just
> a SourceForge-type code repository.

> I'm trying to digest the discussions about POI, but they keep getting
> buried in the discussions about Jakarta's future ... I haven't made up
> my mind yet on this specific proposal.

I can understand.

Okay then I owe you my sincerest apologies.  Thank you for everything
you do.  If there are any questions that I can answer, please feel free
to ask here, personally or on the POI lists.

-Andy

-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Ceki Gülcü]

The JBoss guys are very smart. Scott Stark is extremely high caliber. Mark is no idiot 
either. Jboss is successful because it is so fucking good. From where I stand, the 
other appservers are just copying JBoss. Where do you think the MBean architecture in 
Weblogic 6.x came from? 

The problem with JBoss is that while they innovate BEA and IBM make all the dough. 
Such is the nature of opensource. Bloody fucking hell!

(From what I hear Orion is pretty good too.)

At 02:18 08.01.2002 +0100, you wrote:
>> Jboss's success seems to be one project. I'm actually glad they went to
>> sourceforge...they would have struggled to survive here...
>
>How can you know?
>
>I have studied their code and their documentation some months ago, I 
>have also followed some of their mailling lists for sometime and that is
>not that obvious to me.
>
>I do NOT prefer what they call community. I do not find their code that 
>good. I do not like their documentation that much.
>
>JBoss success has a lot to do with the lack of credible alternative for
>something with a lot of demand, unlike Jakarta products like Tomcat or
>Velocity.
>
>Give me a better case and/or concrete reasons, please.
>
>
>Have fun,
>Paulo Gaspar
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:25 AM
>> 
>> on 1/7/02 4:26 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> > Which projects are those?
>> > Can you really compare them - and their community - with Jakarta?
>> 
>> Jboss's success seems to be one project. I'm actually glad they went to
>> sourceforge...they would have struggled to survive here...
>> 
>> -jon
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
>For additional commands, e-mail: 

--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Andrew C. Oliver]

>> I think many folks on
>> the list aren't listening to each other let alone to someone from the
>> outer circle.  

>That is my complaint about not just this list, but the entire project.
>We
>have people like Ted and Craig who are perfectly happy just sitting in
>their
>bubble sub-projects and doing whatever they want and you have people
>like
>myself who see a larger picture of what Jakarta is (or could be) and
>want to


I don't monitor every list, but Craig works his butt off.  I'm not sure
he sleeps.  I think you're missing the big picture.  If everyone got
into the big picture none of the small stuff would get done and Jakarta
would fail.  He does good work that greatly contributes to Jakarta. 
Just not in the way you see as correct.  To each their own.

>see people work together more and create less duplication of exactly
>the
>same functionality. Yes, that statement is based on their previous
>postings.

Truly an indexed and searchable directory would alleviate this problem
to a great degree.  Better documentation would help too.

If you feel motivation is a factor come up with some positive measures. 
A nice news story on the front page of Jakarta saying "good job so and
so for taking X and making it more reusable" instead of punitive
measures (like trashing them on the list).  Most psychologist  agree
positive reinforcement is far more powerful than negative
reinforcement.  (I've got two stepchildren.  I can provide data if
you're really interested)


>> Its funny I kind of agree with some (but not all) of the points that
>Jon
>> guy makes but he seems to want to make them in such a way that they
>are
>> divisive instead of providing the leadership Stefano praises him for.
>> Leadership is taking the boat and sailing it and inviting others to
>come
>> along not sitting in the back complaining about the heading or
>> proclaiming "its just going to sink and the hell with you all maybe
>I'll
>> quit".  I hope he sees this and becomes the guy Stefano says he is.

>The problem is that I feel like the boat has already capsized, sank and
>rotted on the ocean floor. At this point, I'm pretty disheartened about
>Jakarta...more so than I have felt in over 6 years of being here. I
>have no
>other way to express my unhappiness than to express it by saying it. I
>feel
>like I can't change things anymore and about the only person who could

You see I think you could change things.  The problem as I see it (and
I'm just a young whipper-snapper so take it for what you will) is that
you're going about it the wrong way (maybe you forgot what everyone says
you taught them and maybe a young whipper-snapper like me can nudge you
a bit and remind you I feel like I'm quoting some bad Christmas movie). 
If I was a committer and posted a change and then you reposted the
commit log to this list and trashed me, I'd be prone to ignore you in
the future.  Try this.  Propose things that will alleviate the problem
that are positive and non-regulatory in nature.  Like I mentioned a
solution above which has helped at places I've worked in the past. 
Propose it, create and get others to help.  (count me in I didn't know
Jakarta commons had a collections package!).  As you say on your Jon's
fan club page shut up about it and contribute to Jakarta.  

For instance, someone mentioned you were working on some documentation. 
Maybe there is a section of code to be javadoc'd or something.  Send me
an email and say "Andy, pay your Jakarta taxes.  I'm working on this and
I've got soo much to do, can you research and javadoc this code right
here and send me the patch".  Maybe I'd tell you where to stick your
request and you'd send it to someone else.  Someone would do it.

That's leadership.  You're not providing that.  Most folks who don't
contribute but use Jakarta products regularly are either too scared (of
getting a post like some of yours) or have no idea where to start.  When
someone writes me saying "Where can I help", I might point them to some
documentation, but I say HERE...here is something that needs doing.  On
most Jakarta projects this doesn't happen. 

Serve by example, don't just spout negativity.  

Next, I don't agree with you that all duplication is bad.  I think it
would be good if LogKit and Log4J were one (personal opinion), but I
don't think that everything is a common library.  

There problems are SOO common that if they really did sink ships
then there would be NO successful software organizations at all.

>>is
>>Sam, but I am not seeing him take the reigns in such a way to rebuild
>>the
>>ship...only to try to a lifeboat together over the next few years...

>If you look at how Scarab is run, we are pretty damn successful at this
>point with regards to building and managing a strong developer
>community
>around it. And it isn't even a Jakarta project. I personally see the
>model I
>have used for Scarab as pretty close to right way to run projects.

So use it.  To be honest I don't see your comparison.  Ja

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 5:18 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Jboss's success seems to be one project. I'm actually glad they went to
>> sourceforge...they would have struggled to survive here...
> 
> How can you know?

I hosted their project on my servers for the first couple of years they were
alive and have had a boat load of conversations with Marc.

> I have studied their code and their documentation some months ago, I
> have also followed some of their mailling lists for sometime and that is
> not that obvious to me.
> 
> I do NOT prefer what they call community. I do not find their code that
> good. I do not like their documentation that much.
> 
> JBoss success has a lot to do with the lack of credible alternative for
> something with a lot of demand

I think it is more than that though...they have worked to develop a
community and a LOT of interest. At least that is what their website
suggests. It could be a result of what you say, but Jakarta's success isn't
necessarily because of our projects or our community...it is because of the
Apache name behind it.

>, unlike Jakarta products like Tomcat or
> Velocity.

Velocity isn't that successful compared with projects like Tomcat or Struts.
There is only 500 people on the -user mailing list and 220 on the -dev
Velocity lists. Of course we don't have Sun marketing backing us though...
:-(

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 1/7/02 11:04 AM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> on 1/7/02 2:45 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:33, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>>> Peter,
>>> 
>>> So are you proposing to become a log4j committer?
>> 
>> Would there be a point to that?
> 
> 
> Exactly. Collaboration on a single logging tool would be a terrible idea.
> 
> 
> -jon
> 

Whew.  Good thing you noted that it was sarcasm or we never would have
guessed ...

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
"Now what do we do?"


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jeff Turner]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 03:44:50PM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Guys,
> 
> This whole experience has become a bit disheartening.  Craig McClanahan
> who is like an idol of mine said this:
> 
> "
> We will continue to do what we've done in the past -- reject projects
> that only want the "name recognition" value of being under Apache, and
> don't have a development community compatible with Apache's style.
> That's much more important than whether it's server-side versus
> client-side, or in one repository versus another.
> "
> 
> Seemingly directed at POI.

I don't see what the problem is. Read it carefully.. for that statement
to apply, POI would have to:

 - _only_ want the name recognition.
 - have a development community incompatible with Apache's style

Do either of those statements apply to POI?

Incidentally, the other statement Craig made in that email sums it all
up for me:

>> The point from Jon that I *do* dismiss is his feeling that there
>> should be one and only one implementation of any particular
>> functionality -- "one size fits all" is a very rare phenomenon in my
>> experience, and having some choice is helpful.

I have _never_ seen a user complain about having too many choices. Not
even between notorious duplications like Tomcat 3/4 and Crimson/Xerces.

I _have_ seen users want comparisons, and better docs to help them make
the choice. 

Choice is good. Documented choice is infinitely better :)

I would encourage people (esp. Jon, Ceki, Peter) to read Linus' emails
on design:

  "The problem with "singlemindedness and strict control" (or "design")
  is that it sure gets you from point A to point B in a much straighter
  line, and with less expenditure of energy, but how the HELL are you
  going to consistently know where you actually want to end up?  It's
  not like we know that B is our final destination."

   -- http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398


--Jeff

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Cultural homogeneity

[Paulo Gaspar]

> So, that's my $0.00 this time around (that's about 10,000 Turkish 
> Lira today). 

I would give at least 2 Euros for this one!
=:o)

Couldn't say it better... or I would have done it before!
=:o)


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: Kief Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:30 AM
> 
> Jon Scott Stevens typed the following on 04:22 PM 1/6/2002 -0800
> >on 1/6/02 3:46 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Although I haven't been participating, I've been following 
> this discussion,
> >> and would like to donate my 30,000 Turkish Lira (roughly $0.02 
> at today's
> >> rates).
> >
> >Yes, everyone has an opinion and it is easy to express, but no 
> one stands up
> >to actually make anything of it. So, therefore, the opinion is actually
> >worthless (ie: $0.00).
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that way Jon, but I don't entirely see that 
> you're making
> anything of your opinions either. Not to disrespect your contributions to
> Jakarta, but if we're discussing what's wrong with Jakarta, what's your 
> solution? So far the most concrete solution I've seen from you is that
> Geir or Ceki would make a better PMC than Sam, presumably because
> they would govern with a more iron fist. So, if that's what you want, do
> something about it, you're a PMC member, call for a vote. Otherwise,
> what do you suggest be done?
> 
> What exactly *is* the problem with Jakarta from your POV? My 
> interpretation
> of your comments is that Jakarta needs to be more tightly managed (more
> Cathedral than Bazaar?) I see this as more of a philosophical 
> problem: some
> people prefer a more loosely knit organization, consensus rather 
> than command,
> some prefer a more tightly run ship. You say that the current management
> philosophy has sunk the ship, Jakarta is a big failure, etc., but 
> what *exactly*
> has gone wrong?
> 
> - Code standards are not being enforced. An issue, maybe, but IMO 
> not something
>   that has killed the project, I can't see that it's had a 
> negative effect on the
>   quality of the code or its success in the industry: it's just 
> untidy. And I think it's
>   perfectly correctible within the current regime. Somebody who 
> doesn't like it
>   can implement the system Sam suggested to monitor and nag code 
> formatting.
>   If nobody can be arsed to implement that, it can't be that big 
> a problem, can it?
> 
> - Duplication of code (logging, validation, etc.) Partly a 
> philosophical problem. As Craig
>   says, diversity is good. On the other hand, maybe Jakarta 
> should present a clear,
>   unified interface to its users.
> 
> I have to straddle the fence here, (sorry, I'm failing to make 
> something again), and
> say I agree that Jakarta could be better, but I don't think a 
> more dictatorial central
> command would achieve that. For example, you suggest Sam should 
> "take authority 
> and mandate" documentation requirements. Why not propose it, and have the
> community agree on it? If the community doesn't want to do it, 
> Sam or someone
> else imposing rules from on high isn't going to make them do it. 
> 
> I can see your frustration - there are lots of things like the 
> above issues that
> you would like to see changed, and if the only way to make them happen is
> for an interested person to make it so, then you're faced with 
> the alternatives
> of doing it yourself (and you already do a lot of shit, and 
> apparently on the
> edge of burning yourself out), or seeing it not get done. Having 
> someone else
> take charge and impose order probably seems like the ideal solution. 
> 
> But if someone were to actually do that at Jakarta, the suspect 
> the results would 
> be massive defections, and a severe shrinking of the project. A 
> laissez-faire
> community can tolerate people who want more order, but an authoritarian
> regime can't tolerate those who want more freedom.
> 
> Maybe defections of those who don't want a tightly run ship would 
> suit you, Jakarta 
> would be reduced to a smaller, more easily managed project, more 
> like the old
> days, perhaps. 
> 
> So I'm still not contributing anything to this. Why not? Because 
> Jakarta as it
> exists suits my needs very well. I'm always finding more useful 
> stuff in Jakarta,
> and although there are rough edges - build processes aren't 
> consistent, and it
> does occasionally annoy me to have to install a different package 
> for logging
> or such - for the most part, these things are much more 
> consistent than what I 
> find on sourceforge. If I can find a Jakarta package that does 
> what I need, I don't
> usually care if what's on sourceforge is better, I'll use the 
> Jakarta version
> because it shares the build processes, package dependencies, and process
> for contributing changes, that I'm used to. The sourceforge 
> projects I've dabbled
> with just aren't put together the way I like.
> 
> So, that's my $0.00 this time around (that's about 1

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

> Jboss's success seems to be one project. I'm actually glad they went to
> sourceforge...they would have struggled to survive here...

How can you know?

I have studied their code and their documentation some months ago, I 
have also followed some of their mailling lists for sometime and that is
not that obvious to me.

I do NOT prefer what they call community. I do not find their code that 
good. I do not like their documentation that much.

JBoss success has a lot to do with the lack of credible alternative for
something with a lot of demand, unlike Jakarta products like Tomcat or
Velocity.

Give me a better case and/or concrete reasons, please.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:25 AM
> 
> on 1/7/02 4:26 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Which projects are those?
> > Can you really compare them - and their community - with Jakarta?
> 
> Jboss's success seems to be one project. I'm actually glad they went to
> sourceforge...they would have struggled to survive here...
> 
> -jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Questions

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 5:11 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Why is that question important???
> 
> Paulo

I'm curious. Is it now not permitted to ask a question out of curiosity?

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Questions

[Paulo Gaspar]

> If we were to elect a new PMC Chair tomorrow, who would you like to see
> elected?

Why is that question important???

Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:07 AM
>
>
> on 1/7/02 1:36 PM, "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Look, I think Sam is irreplaceable and so are you.  I don't
> want to even think
> > about what would happen if anything happened to any of you.
> Heaven forbid.
> > That's all I have to say on this.
>
> You and Ted are focusing on the wrong part of the question. Let
> me rephrase
> the same question another way so that you can see how your focus is on the
> wrong thing:
>
> If we were to elect a new PMC Chair tomorrow, who would you like to see
> elected?
>
> -jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: crushed

[Paulo Gaspar]

> Part of what I'm asking for is very simple: documentation of the
> process and then following that process.
>
> Remember that all of this started with something as simple as source code
> formatting. We can't even get that right or even anything close
> to agreement on it.

Jon,

I see you crying a lot over this but no POSITIVE initiative.

Sam already suggested performing an automated check and NAG the trespassers.
Do you see a better alternative?

I believe you already slapped me around a few times for complaining instead
of acting. Your turn to act.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: crushed
>
>
> on 1/7/02 3:51 PM, "Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "The problem with "singlemindedness and strict control" (or "design")
> > is that it sure gets you from point A to point B in a much straighter
> > line, and with less expenditure of energy, but how the HELL are you
> > going to consistently know where you actually want to end up?  It's
> > not like we know that B is our final destination."
> >
> >  -- http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398
>
> That isn't entirely what I'm asking for (re: singlemindedness and strict
> control).
>
> Part of what I'm asking for is very simple: documentation of the
> process and
> then following that process.
>
> Remember that all of this started with something as simple as source code
> formatting. We can't even get that right or even anything close
> to agreement
> on it.
>
> -jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: crushed

[Paulo Gaspar]

> I would encourage people (esp. Jon, Ceki, Peter) to read Linus' emails
> on design:
> 
>   "The problem with "singlemindedness and strict control" (or "design")
>   is that it sure gets you from point A to point B in a much straighter
>   line, and with less expenditure of energy, but how the HELL are you
>   going to consistently know where you actually want to end up?  It's
>   not like we know that B is our final destination."
> 
>-- http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398


UAU!
Another guy that saw the light!!!
=:oD

Have fun,
Paulo


> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:51 AM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: crushed
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 03:44:50PM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > Guys,
> > 
> > This whole experience has become a bit disheartening.  Craig McClanahan
> > who is like an idol of mine said this:
> > 
> > "
> > We will continue to do what we've done in the past -- reject projects
> > that only want the "name recognition" value of being under Apache, and
> > don't have a development community compatible with Apache's style.
> > That's much more important than whether it's server-side versus
> > client-side, or in one repository versus another.
> > "
> > 
> > Seemingly directed at POI.
> 
> I don't see what the problem is. Read it carefully.. for that statement
> to apply, POI would have to:
> 
>  - _only_ want the name recognition.
>  - have a development community incompatible with Apache's style
> 
> Do either of those statements apply to POI?
> 
> Incidentally, the other statement Craig made in that email sums it all
> up for me:
> 
> >> The point from Jon that I *do* dismiss is his feeling that there
> >> should be one and only one implementation of any particular
> >> functionality -- "one size fits all" is a very rare phenomenon in my
> >> experience, and having some choice is helpful.
> 
> I have _never_ seen a user complain about having too many choices. Not
> even between notorious duplications like Tomcat 3/4 and Crimson/Xerces.
> 
> I _have_ seen users want comparisons, and better docs to help them make
> the choice. 
> 
> Choice is good. Documented choice is infinitely better :)
> 
> I would encourage people (esp. Jon, Ceki, Peter) to read Linus' emails
> on design:
> 
>   "The problem with "singlemindedness and strict control" (or "design")
>   is that it sure gets you from point A to point B in a much straighter
>   line, and with less expenditure of energy, but how the HELL are you
>   going to consistently know where you actually want to end up?  It's
>   not like we know that B is our final destination."
> 
>-- http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398
> 
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Cross-pollination

[Paulo Gaspar]

A document in some web page buried deep in the structure of a large web
site is not open to public discussion because unless you are privy to
reading all the web site you don't know about it.


Hey... that is why not so many people knew about Intake!!!
...and it is even harder to find out that there is a Connection Pool in
Turbine.

I casually found DBCP the first time I visited the commons page in a
couple of minutes but had to use Google before loosing my patience trying
to find it at the Turbine pages.


Forrest is very recent and maybe the xml.apache guys should have already
posted a note about it HERE and on several other spots.

However, making information public across Apache demands a bit more work
than just posting it at a single spot, web site or mailing list.


Just trying to make sure you understand how much effort can take to make
information public across such large community and how easy is to fail
when everybody does not read everything.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Cross-pollination
>
>
> I care what is openly documented on websites. A mailing list discussion is
> not an open discussion because unless you are privy to reading
> all the mail,
> you don't know about it.
>
> -jon
>
> on 1/7/02 11:08 AM, "Scott Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It has been discussed on general@xml.  Check the archives.
> >
> > Scott
> > 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cultural homogeneity

[Kief Morris]

Jon Scott Stevens typed the following on 04:22 PM 1/6/2002 -0800
>on 1/6/02 3:46 PM, "Kief Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Although I haven't been participating, I've been following this discussion,
>> and would like to donate my 30,000 Turkish Lira (roughly $0.02 at today's
>> rates).
>
>Yes, everyone has an opinion and it is easy to express, but no one stands up
>to actually make anything of it. So, therefore, the opinion is actually
>worthless (ie: $0.00).

I'm sorry you feel that way Jon, but I don't entirely see that you're making
anything of your opinions either. Not to disrespect your contributions to
Jakarta, but if we're discussing what's wrong with Jakarta, what's your 
solution? So far the most concrete solution I've seen from you is that
Geir or Ceki would make a better PMC than Sam, presumably because
they would govern with a more iron fist. So, if that's what you want, do
something about it, you're a PMC member, call for a vote. Otherwise,
what do you suggest be done?

What exactly *is* the problem with Jakarta from your POV? My interpretation
of your comments is that Jakarta needs to be more tightly managed (more
Cathedral than Bazaar?) I see this as more of a philosophical problem: some
people prefer a more loosely knit organization, consensus rather than command,
some prefer a more tightly run ship. You say that the current management
philosophy has sunk the ship, Jakarta is a big failure, etc., but what *exactly*
has gone wrong?

- Code standards are not being enforced. An issue, maybe, but IMO not something
  that has killed the project, I can't see that it's had a negative effect on the
  quality of the code or its success in the industry: it's just untidy. And I think 
it's
  perfectly correctible within the current regime. Somebody who doesn't like it
  can implement the system Sam suggested to monitor and nag code formatting.
  If nobody can be arsed to implement that, it can't be that big a problem, can it?

- Duplication of code (logging, validation, etc.) Partly a philosophical problem. As 
Craig
  says, diversity is good. On the other hand, maybe Jakarta should present a clear,
  unified interface to its users.

I have to straddle the fence here, (sorry, I'm failing to make something again), and
say I agree that Jakarta could be better, but I don't think a more dictatorial central
command would achieve that. For example, you suggest Sam should "take authority 
and mandate" documentation requirements. Why not propose it, and have the
community agree on it? If the community doesn't want to do it, Sam or someone
else imposing rules from on high isn't going to make them do it. 

I can see your frustration - there are lots of things like the above issues that
you would like to see changed, and if the only way to make them happen is
for an interested person to make it so, then you're faced with the alternatives
of doing it yourself (and you already do a lot of shit, and apparently on the
edge of burning yourself out), or seeing it not get done. Having someone else
take charge and impose order probably seems like the ideal solution. 

But if someone were to actually do that at Jakarta, the suspect the results would 
be massive defections, and a severe shrinking of the project. A laissez-faire
community can tolerate people who want more order, but an authoritarian
regime can't tolerate those who want more freedom.

Maybe defections of those who don't want a tightly run ship would suit you, Jakarta 
would be reduced to a smaller, more easily managed project, more like the old
days, perhaps. 

So I'm still not contributing anything to this. Why not? Because Jakarta as it
exists suits my needs very well. I'm always finding more useful stuff in Jakarta,
and although there are rough edges - build processes aren't consistent, and it
does occasionally annoy me to have to install a different package for logging
or such - for the most part, these things are much more consistent than what I 
find on sourceforge. If I can find a Jakarta package that does what I need, I don't
usually care if what's on sourceforge is better, I'll use the Jakarta version
because it shares the build processes, package dependencies, and process
for contributing changes, that I'm used to. The sourceforge projects I've dabbled
with just aren't put together the way I like.

So, that's my $0.00 this time around (that's about 10,000 Turkish Lira today). 

Kief


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 4:26 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Which projects are those?
> Can you really compare them - and their community - with Jakarta?

Jboss's success seems to be one project. I'm actually glad they went to
sourceforge...they would have struggled to survive here...

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 4:23 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> if the peers agree with this process.

My opinion is that there are to many peers in the process and that is what
is breaking Jakarta. This wasn't a problem until now. We are starting to
explode under our own ever growing weight.

Jakarta is like a beached whale.

http://www.perp.com/whale/video.html

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

> I do what I can at the pace I am able.

Which is quite impressive. Especially considering that you probably have
other duties and a live.

I agree 100% with the rest (especially with the mass revolt bit).

Checking mechanisms (automatic or manual) and systematic nagging look 
much more constructive and efficient to me than occasional bursts of
flames.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -Original Message-
> From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:17 PM
> 
> Jon Stevens wrote:
> >
> > There were no documents like that before I wrote it.
> 
> Forgive me, but I still hold to my belief that that at the time it was
> written, that document wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
> 
> > Just like there was no nag.pl before I came up with the idea to 
> implement
> > it.
> 
> You can believe what you want.  It was part of my master plan.
> 
> > If anything, you initially resisted nag.pl. One way I know this is
> because
> > as the PMC Chair, you refused make it a requirement of projects to have
> it
> > enabled. Instead, you relied on social pressures to work their magic.
> This
> > actually extended the amount of time it took for people to 
> adopt Gump and
> > raise its awareness. It also caused quite a bit of pain (as you say
> below)
> > as projects had votes against it.
> 
> IIRC, your plan was to send nags on succcesses as well as failures.
> 
> Re: mass conversion - I still believe that there would have been mass
> revolt instead.  I do not have enough arms and legs to be 
> everywhere at all
> times.  I have deliberatedly paced the rate at which I have incorporated
> new codebases based on how many battles I felt that I could concurrently
> fight.
> 
> There are quite a few code bases that took a number of iterations before
> the either saw the light or resigned themselves to the fact that I wasn't
> going to relent.
> 
> > Exactly. I feel that this lack of semblance of control from the top has
> > actually hurt us. Looking at the success of other projects which have
> more
> > control at the top makes me realize this. Jakarta to me is now 
> a complete
> > anarchy where people can do whatever they want without having to worry
> about
> > consequences over the long term.
> 
> I do what I can at the pace I am able.
> 
> - Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

Which projects are those?
Can you really compare them - and their community - with Jakarta?

I just want to know more.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:16 PM
>
> ...
>
> Exactly. I feel that this lack of semblance of control from the top has
> actually hurt us. Looking at the success of other projects which have more
> control at the top makes me realize this. Jakarta to me is now a complete
> anarchy where people can do whatever they want without having to
> worry about consequences over the long term.
>
> -jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

> without ever deciding. The advantage of a referendum is that once
> a decision is made you get peer pressure for free. Not PMC
> pressure, not chairman pressure but peer pressure!

I can finally agree with Ceki without restrictions. Peer pressure
is the way... if the peers agree with this process.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:54 PM
>
>
> At 10:33 07.01.2002 -0800, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> >on 1/7/02 10:29 AM, "Jim Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> IMHO, until the documentation is made part of the formal
> committing process,
> >> the jakarta tools will only be valuable to the people who
> developed them.
> >>
> >> I know that I am opening myself up to a serious flame, but
> that is the way I
> >> see it.
> >>
> >> Jim Scott
> >
> >No flame. That is a really good suggestion and one of the better $0.00 I
> >have heard in a long time...
> >
> >The bigger issue would then to be to have Sam (the current PMC chair and
> >person with the potential for authority) to take authority and
> mandate such
> >an action over Jakarta.
>
>
> Excellent topic. Much more neutral than code conventions.
>
> Who is going to judge the quality of documentation and enforce such a
> rule if it is ever enunciated?
>
> Let us instate a system based on referendum, where the shareholders
> can directly intervene in making laws. By "shareholders", I mean
> developers with commit rights.
>
> To avoid voting on trivialities, a referendum would require the
> support of at least five committers to acquire the "valid"
> status. After a possible but short delay, a valid referendum is
> submitted to shareholder vote. The result of the vote determines
> whether the referendum is accepted or rejected. An accepted referendum
> becomes law of Jakarta.
>
> This procedure is undeniably heavy. However, so is debating issues
> without ever deciding. The advantage of a referendum is that once
> a decision is made you get peer pressure for free. Not PMC
> pressure, not chairman pressure but peer pressure!
>
> Too heavy handed? OK, what is the alternative?
>
>
> --
> Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Questions

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 1:36 PM, "Ceki Gülcü" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Look, I think Sam is irreplaceable and so are you.  I don't want to even think
> about what would happen if anything happened to any of you. Heaven forbid.
> That's all I have to say on this.

You and Ted are focusing on the wrong part of the question. Let me rephrase
the same question another way so that you can see how your focus is on the
wrong thing:

If we were to elect a new PMC Chair tomorrow, who would you like to see
elected?

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 3:51 PM, "Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "The problem with "singlemindedness and strict control" (or "design")
> is that it sure gets you from point A to point B in a much straighter
> line, and with less expenditure of energy, but how the HELL are you
> going to consistently know where you actually want to end up?  It's
> not like we know that B is our final destination."
> 
>  -- http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398

That isn't entirely what I'm asking for (re: singlemindedness and strict
control). 

Part of what I'm asking for is very simple: documentation of the process and
then following that process.

Remember that all of this started with something as simple as source code
formatting. We can't even get that right or even anything close to agreement
on it.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On 7 Jan 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

>
> This whole experience has become a bit disheartening.  Craig McClanahan
> who is like an idol of mine said this:
>
> "
> We will continue to do what we've done in the past -- reject projects
> that
> only want the "name recognition" value of being under Apache, and don't
> have a development community compatible with Apache's style.  That's
> much
> more important than whether it's server-side versus client-side, or in
> one
> repository versus another.
> "
>
> Seemingly directed at POI.

I know it's hard to tell from the convoluted way this thread have gone
back and forth, but the comment above was not intended to have *anything*
to do with POI specifically, or the proposal to move POI to Apache.  It
was a response to Ceki's concern about how to keep Jakarta from being just
a SourceForge-type code repository.

I'm trying to digest the discussions about POI, but they keep getting
buried in the discussions about Jakarta's future ... I haven't made up
my mind yet on this specific proposal.

Craig


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:33 PM
>
>
> At 19:02 07.01.2002 +0100, you wrote:
> >> Being PMC chair isn't going to help solve any problems because of
> >> our system of checks and balances.
> >
> >I just love "checks and balances".
> >It is the least perfect system except for all the others already tried.
>
> Did you know that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention
> of 1787 were fearful of "popular rule" and hence the convoluted
> way for electing the US President? See Article 2, Section 1,
> Clauses 2 and 3 of the US Constitution. Amendment 12 changed the
> election system such that the people of a state voted directly
> for the electors instead of the state legislatures selecting the
> electors. The current system is still somewhat outdated as the
> recent Presidential elections have shown.
>
> I am bringing this up because fear of popular rule is deeply
> ingrained in our psyches. This was so in 1787, still is in 2001.
>
> Anyway, I am not suggesting we create a system of checks and
> balances with judges, legislature and an executive. Jakarta is
> too small for that. Jakarta is much more like a software company
> then a nation. It should be run as such. Jakarta committers can
> be viewed as the shareholders of Jakarta.

Neither I.

I am just defending "popular rule", as imperfect as it is, as the
best system. And also defending the "checks and balances" that
avoid any minority of taking advantage of some hole in the rules
to subvert that "popular rule".

Of course that I am pushing the envelope comparing Apache's system
with a democracy - which it is not and should not become. I just
find that the current meritocracy system works quite well.

It is not perfect, but I believe that enforcing too much
strictness would be counterproductive.

As Sam, I see clear signs of progress. Self organization is slowly
happening. We all want the same - we just need some time to find a
way to achieve we all believe in, which is sometimes a slow trial
and error process.

Knowing well some "pseudo-organizized" companies (having worked
with some in the past) makes me quite sure of this. Organizations
with less discipline often end up being much more productive.

If forcing someone to work in a way he/she does not believe in
(especially in software development) is so inefficient in the
corporate world, where labor is paid, imagine what would happen
here.

Spending more time to achieve agreement trough trial and error is
a small price to pay for the stronger synergies that can be
reached later.

Guidance / coaching / "evangelism" and improved communication
channels can be very useful to make convergence faster, but a
heavy hand will just produce an empty "community".


> ...
> vested in the general assembly, that is the assembly of
> shareholders. The same holds true in the rest of Europe and most
> probably in the US and the rest of the world as well.
>
> We are all volunteers. Thus, it is impossible to dictate to
> Apache developers. However, they can be convinced, cajoled or
> gently pressured. Peer pressure is extremely effective but
> requires consensus. Consensus about the community's will, not
> your or my will, but the larger group's will, can be achieved as
> a result of a vote.
>
> In short: We vote. We get a decision about what we want. We
> implement what we want.
>
> Does it make sense? Regards, Ceki

Of course!


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jeff Turner]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 03:44:50PM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> Guys,
> 
> This whole experience has become a bit disheartening.  Craig McClanahan
> who is like an idol of mine said this:
> 
> "
> We will continue to do what we've done in the past -- reject projects
> that only want the "name recognition" value of being under Apache, and
> don't have a development community compatible with Apache's style.
> That's much more important than whether it's server-side versus
> client-side, or in one repository versus another.
> "
> 
> Seemingly directed at POI.

I don't see what the problem is. Read it carefully.. for that statement
to apply, POI would have to:

 - _only_ want the name recognition.
 - have a development community incompatible with Apache's style

Do either of those statements apply to POI?

Incidentally, the other statement Craig made in that email sums it all
up for me:

>> The point from Jon that I *do* dismiss is his feeling that there
>> should be one and only one implementation of any particular
>> functionality -- "one size fits all" is a very rare phenomenon in my
>> experience, and having some choice is helpful.

I have _never_ seen a user complain about having too many choices. Not
even between notorious duplications like Tomcat 3/4 and Crimson/Xerces.

I _have_ seen users want comparisons, and better docs to help them make
the choice. 

Choice is good. Documented choice is infinitely better :)

I would encourage people (esp. Jon, Ceki, Peter) to read Linus' emails
on design:

  "The problem with "singlemindedness and strict control" (or "design")
  is that it sure gets you from point A to point B in a much straighter
  line, and with less expenditure of energy, but how the HELL are you
  going to consistently know where you actually want to end up?  It's
  not like we know that B is our final destination."

   -- http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398


--Jeff

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Micael Padraig Og mac Grene]

At 03:44 PM 1/7/02 -0500, you wrote:
>Guys,
>
>This whole experience has become a bit disheartening.  Craig McClanahan
>who is like an idol of mine said this:


What I like most about Craig is that he is concise and accurate.

- micael


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 2:20 PM, "Paul Hammant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> We should be careful turning away projects as they may end up as GPL
> .

Now that is the funniest reason I have heard for accepting projects here!
:-) Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Paul Hammant]

Andrew,

Don't be disheartened.  Regroup and come back later.  (ref : Robert the 
Bruce and the Spider).

1) Build a bigger community that is active behind POI,  
2) Add value to the project by making sure it can run inside as many 
contexts as possible,  
3) possibly depend on more Apache projects,
4) move snippets of code out of your project, if possible, to Apache 
projects (or sub projects) if (3) is an inexact hit.  i.e. donation.

*Opinion*

We should be careful turning away projects as they may end up as GPL 
.  Perhaps like Commons, there should be an open proving ground 
for those wishing to make steps into the Apache world.  In there rules 
could be limited to "thou shalt not advertise this as an Apache 
project".  Maybe some mentoring - "depend less on the file system", "how 
about a remote management console", "what about the XYZ pattern".  If 
mentoring is too heavy, maybe a three monthly review.

Regards,

- Paul H



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Ted Husted]

Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> If you look at how Scarab is run, we are pretty damn successful at this
> point with regards to building and managing a strong developer community
> around it. And it isn't even a Jakarta project. I personally see the model I
> have used for Scarab as pretty close to right way to run projects.


I don't suppose there is any potential for tigris.org becoming an ASF
Project. 

Which is to say, could we create a Tigris-like ASF Project, with Jon at
the helm?


-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Building Java web applications with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Andrew C. Oliver]

>Have many developers does scarab have, 10? Jakarta has around 200
>committers plus ten 
>times that many developers. At 200'000 USD per committer that's a
>budget of 40'000'000 

Whoa dude.  I am SO doing something wrong.  200,000?

>USD a year. I'd estimate the budget of an equivalently sized software
>company at 
>100'000'000 USD year. You think that's easy to manage? Sam's vision
>differs from yours 
>and mine. That does not mean he is wrong and that you are right. 
>Anyway, what is 
>exactly your vision? and how would you go about getting there? (How can
>you force 
>people to cooperate more?)

exactly.  Show leadership.  Go get your own tugboat and pull the ship to
shore.  Don't stand on the water yelling "Why won't you #$! fetch the
ship".

>How many places do you know where people keep arguing and arguing and
>still stick 
>around? The only other place I know is my family. 

+1

-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 13:11 07.01.2002 -0800, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
>on 1/7/02 12:44 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think many folks on
>> the list aren't listening to each other let alone to someone from the
>> outer circle.  
>
>That is my complaint about not just this list, but the entire project. We
>have people like Ted and Craig who are perfectly happy just sitting in their
>bubble sub-projects and doing whatever they want and you have people like
>myself who see a larger picture of what Jakarta is (or could be) and want to
>see people work together more and create less duplication of exactly the
>same functionality. Yes, that statement is based on their previous postings.
>
>> Its funny I kind of agree with some (but not all) of the points that Jon
>> guy makes but he seems to want to make them in such a way that they are
>> divisive instead of providing the leadership Stefano praises him for.
>> Leadership is taking the boat and sailing it and inviting others to come
>> along not sitting in the back complaining about the heading or
>> proclaiming "its just going to sink and the hell with you all maybe I'll
>> quit".  I hope he sees this and becomes the guy Stefano says he is.
>
>The problem is that I feel like the boat has already capsized, sank and
>rotted on the ocean floor. At this point, I'm pretty disheartened about
>Jakarta...more so than I have felt in over 6 years of being here. I have no
>other way to express my unhappiness than to express it by saying it. I feel
>like I can't change things anymore and about the only person who could is
>Sam, but I am not seeing him take the reigns in such a way to rebuild the
>ship...only to try to a lifeboat together over the next few years...
>
>If you look at how Scarab is run, we are pretty damn successful at this
>point with regards to building and managing a strong developer community
>around it. And it isn't even a Jakarta project. I personally see the model I
>have used for Scarab as pretty close to right way to run projects.
>
>Not that it is a contest, but I can guarantee I feel more crushed than you.

Have many developers does scarab have, 10? Jakarta has around 200 committers plus ten 
times that many developers. At 200'000 USD per committer that's a budget of 40'000'000 
USD a year. I'd estimate the budget of an equivalently sized software company at 
100'000'000 USD year. You think that's easy to manage? Sam's vision differs from yours 
and mine. That does not mean he is wrong and that you are right.  Anyway, what is 
exactly your vision? and how would you go about getting there? (How can you force 
people to cooperate more?)

How many places do you know where people keep arguing and arguing and still stick 
around? The only other place I know is my family. 

--

Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Questions

[Ceki Gülcü]

Look, I think Sam is irreplaceable and so are you.  I don't want to even think about 
what would happen if anything happened to any of you. Heaven forbid. That's all I have 
to say on this. 

At 11:27 07.01.2002 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>If Sam gets hit by a bus tomorrow, who would be willing to step up and take
>over the PMC chairmanship?
>
>
>p.s. I have no interest in being PMC Chair.
>
>-jon
>
>-- 
>Standard rules apply: Ask any questions, and you get the job. ;-)
>
>(I left this .sig in on purpose, because this quote is from Sam and I think
>it is funny based on the question.)

--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 12:44 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think many folks on
> the list aren't listening to each other let alone to someone from the
> outer circle.  

That is my complaint about not just this list, but the entire project. We
have people like Ted and Craig who are perfectly happy just sitting in their
bubble sub-projects and doing whatever they want and you have people like
myself who see a larger picture of what Jakarta is (or could be) and want to
see people work together more and create less duplication of exactly the
same functionality. Yes, that statement is based on their previous postings.

> Its funny I kind of agree with some (but not all) of the points that Jon
> guy makes but he seems to want to make them in such a way that they are
> divisive instead of providing the leadership Stefano praises him for.
> Leadership is taking the boat and sailing it and inviting others to come
> along not sitting in the back complaining about the heading or
> proclaiming "its just going to sink and the hell with you all maybe I'll
> quit".  I hope he sees this and becomes the guy Stefano says he is.

The problem is that I feel like the boat has already capsized, sank and
rotted on the ocean floor. At this point, I'm pretty disheartened about
Jakarta...more so than I have felt in over 6 years of being here. I have no
other way to express my unhappiness than to express it by saying it. I feel
like I can't change things anymore and about the only person who could is
Sam, but I am not seeing him take the reigns in such a way to rebuild the
ship...only to try to a lifeboat together over the next few years...

If you look at how Scarab is run, we are pretty damn successful at this
point with regards to building and managing a strong developer community
around it. And it isn't even a Jakarta project. I personally see the model I
have used for Scarab as pretty close to right way to run projects.

Not that it is a contest, but I can guarantee I feel more crushed than you.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: crushed

[Ted Husted]

+1 

"Andrew C. Oliver" wrote:
> I mean lets go ahead with the proposal (final draft in the making)

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

crushed

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Guys,

This whole experience has become a bit disheartening.  Craig McClanahan
who is like an idol of mine said this:

"
We will continue to do what we've done in the past -- reject projects
that
only want the "name recognition" value of being under Apache, and don't
have a development community compatible with Apache's style.  That's
much
more important than whether it's server-side versus client-side, or in
one
repository versus another.
"

Seemingly directed at POI.  I DO have to admit, I like the idea of name
recognition, anyone who says they don't is a liar and I have a mortgage
to pay, a family and live in what is currently the economic black hole
of my country (if Marc hasn't gotten a job yet, being twice as smart as
I am, then I'm screwed), but my most selfish motivations are more in the
area of I never want to use IIS again if possible or even look at
Windows NT outside of my VMWARE (hopefully one day bochs or plex86)
POI-testing window.  

Marc said this best to me in gaim:
"the number one way we get paid for our open source work is by the
recognition we get. what's wrong with wanting more? but ... that's not
all we're in this for ... the opportunity to do good work that is of
benefit to the Community ... the opportunity to publicly tweak Bill
Gates' nose ... we have noble aims here
"

What is sad is Tomcat is part of why I started this project.  If I can
do my part to make it so there is no reason NOT to use Tomcat or other
Apache projects that I've used so much (or could use if they had POI),
thats what I'm going to do.  If I can't do it from the inside I'll do it
from the outside, I guess I'll feel a bit hurt, but I can deal with
that.  I don't speak for Marc, but I know he feels the same way.

I was fine until people started attacking our motives (without any
basis).  And even then I was even still mostly okay until Craig did (who
I'd still probably ask for his autograph or something if I met him) and
I never even saw him in the discussion. 

I started this project while on contract at a local chemical company
thinking damn I hate helping Actuate make another 10 grand.  (I had no
problem paying Tidestone $300 for the same product once even out of my
own pocket). I thought, I'd far rather use Tomcat then WebSphere (no
offense Sam) and I'd far rather use Cocoon then Actuate. I started this
project originally with the idea of donating the whole thing to Cocoon,
but I kept finding that there were more layers and the puzzle became
just as interesting and as important as the "business case" (because I'm
100% geek thats even my gaim id: javageek02) and to encapsulate it
properly Marc and I developed pieces that didn't directly fit in to the
Cocoon puzzle but had great uses elsewhere.  Plus there was always a
"lets make the project expandable so others can use the pieces to thier
aims"  (a guy from a western European national/international airline
used POIFS on some file format I'd never heard of).  When Stefano said
"lets take the APIs to Jakarta" I stumbled first then I was like "he's
right" it goes right along with what we had in mind when designing the
APIs the only parts that make sense in Cocoon are the Serializers and
Generators.

Regardless of what happens POI will be a success.  When the guy from
Actuate wrote me a "good luck and eat your heart out" message it hit me
"this is for real". 

If POI does make it I'm not sure I should monitor this (general@jakarta)
list too closely.  Its very negative.  The project lists are far more
positive and Apache was always ground up and not top down (doesn't the
name even mean a-patch-y server?).  Lately this list seems to be the
place for anyone with a gripe to yell "The sky is falling", you can say
"Hey here's ideas on how to shore it up a bit" but I think many folks on
the list aren't listening to each other let alone to someone from the
outer circle.  

Its funny I kind of agree with some (but not all) of the points that Jon
guy makes but he seems to want to make them in such a way that they are
divisive instead of providing the leadership Stefano praises him for. 
Leadership is taking the boat and sailing it and inviting others to come
along not sitting in the back complaining about the heading or
proclaiming "its just going to sink and the hell with you all maybe I'll
quit".  I hope he sees this and becomes the guy Stefano says he is.

Stefano, I'm not sure we really made any progress with the request for
comment.  Less folks asked questions so much as made statements w/o even
looking at the project (which I don't think is what we meant by request
for comment) and I get the feeling half of those who did didn't even
LOOK at the answers (even the ones that didn't bounce because TW NC's
Road Runner SMTP server sucks - and you can quote me on that).  I mean
lets go ahead with the proposal (final draft in the making), but I can't
imagine it going well.  Especially with the peculiar talk that our
little project could destroy the apache community singleha

Re: proposal for the jakarta startpage

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Peter Donald wrote:

> Watchdog is TC specific - didn't know that ? Is it servlet/jsp specific or
> tomcat specific? Could it be reimplemented over the top of Cactus or is it
> tied to a specific infrastructure?
>

Watchdog is not Tomcat-specific - the validity tests should work on any
container that implements the appropriate servlet and JSP specifications.
It's based on the same tests that are in the J2EE compliance test suite
(CTS).

Craig


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Sam Ruby]

Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> There were no documents like that before I wrote it.

Forgive me, but I still hold to my belief that that at the time it was
written, that document wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

> Just like there was no nag.pl before I came up with the idea to implement
> it.

You can believe what you want.  It was part of my master plan.

> If anything, you initially resisted nag.pl. One way I know this is
because
> as the PMC Chair, you refused make it a requirement of projects to have
it
> enabled. Instead, you relied on social pressures to work their magic.
This
> actually extended the amount of time it took for people to adopt Gump and
> raise its awareness. It also caused quite a bit of pain (as you say
below)
> as projects had votes against it.

IIRC, your plan was to send nags on succcesses as well as failures.

Re: mass conversion - I still believe that there would have been mass
revolt instead.  I do not have enough arms and legs to be everywhere at all
times.  I have deliberatedly paced the rate at which I have incorporated
new codebases based on how many battles I felt that I could concurrently
fight.

There are quite a few code bases that took a number of iterations before
the either saw the light or resigned themselves to the fact that I wasn't
going to relent.

> Exactly. I feel that this lack of semblance of control from the top has
> actually hurt us. Looking at the success of other projects which have
more
> control at the top makes me realize this. Jakarta to me is now a complete
> anarchy where people can do whatever they want without having to worry
about
> consequences over the long term.

I do what I can at the pace I am able.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

FW: New/updated Darwin docs

[Jon Scott Stevens]

A very nice example of how to do documentation for API level code.

-jon

-- Forwarded Message
From: Ronald Hayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:17:05 -0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New/updated Darwin docs

Here are some documents that are new or updated:

Accessing Hardware From Applications
Accessing Hardware From Applications describes how software running on
Mac OS X can access hardware by communicating with the kernel. In
addition to providing a thorough overview of the device interface
mechanism and listing other methods for accessing hardware from
applications, this book describes in detail how to access a parallel
SCSI device, a serial port modem, and a storage device. The revision of
Accessing Hardware From Applications includes a new chapter describing
how to access a device supported by SCSI Architecture Model family
drivers.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Darwin/IOKit/DeviceInterfaces/Acc
essingHardware.
pdf


Kernel Programming
This is the first installment of the new Kernel Programming book.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Darwin/General/KernelProgramming/
index.html


Writing Device Drivers For Mass Storage Devices
Writing Drivers For Mass Storage Devices introduces the mass storage
driver stack and describes how to subclass Apple-provided drivers to
develop your own logical unit and protocol services drivers. The
revision of Writing Drivers For Mass Storage Devices includes additional
information on the device services layer of the mass storage driver
stack and describes how to develop your own filter scheme.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Darwin/IOKit/DeviceDrivers/MassSt
orage/
index.html

Writing Audio Device Drivers
Describes the concepts and procedures related to the development of an
audio device driver on Mac OS X that is based on the I/O Kit's Audio
family. The conceptual chapters present an overview of the Mac OS X
audio system (including the Audio HAL), describe the architecture of the
Audio family, and go into some detail about the audio I/O model on Mac
OS X. The procedural chapter supplements the task descriptions with
plenty of sample code, showing how to implement an audio device driver
using the Audio family.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Darwin/IOKit/DeviceDrivers/Writin
gAudioDrivers/
index.html
___
darwin-development mailing list | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/darwin-development
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

-- End of Forwarded Message


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Questions

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 11:34 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It's not like everything would grind to a halt.

That isn't my point and you didn't answer my question.

:-)

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Questions

[Ted Husted]

Don't you think pushing Sam out in front of bus would be a little bit
extreme Jon? 

:)

What would happen if who ever said they would step up here was crossing
the street with him?

It's not like everything would grind to a halt. 

I'd be a little more worried about what would happen if Brian got hit by
that bus. The infrastructure we need. 

-T.


Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> 
> If Sam gets hit by a bus tomorrow, who would be willing to step up and take
> over the PMC chairmanship?
> 
> p.s. I have no interest in being PMC Chair.
> 
> -jon
> 
> --
> Standard rules apply: Ask any questions, and you get the job. ;-)
> 
> (I left this .sig in on purpose, because this quote is from Sam and I think
> it is funny based on the question.)
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Questions

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 11:27 AM, "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If Sam gets hit by a bus tomorrow, who would be willing to step up and take
> over the PMC chairmanship?

I should also add that my vote would be for #1. Geir and #2. Ceki.

The reason is that they seem to be about the only two people around here
(counting myself) with a head on their shoulders.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Questions

[Jon Scott Stevens]

If Sam gets hit by a bus tomorrow, who would be willing to step up and take
over the PMC chairmanship?


p.s. I have no interest in being PMC Chair.

-jon

-- 
Standard rules apply: Ask any questions, and you get the job. ;-)

(I left this .sig in on purpose, because this quote is from Sam and I think
it is funny based on the question.)


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cross-pollination

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 11:17 AM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 
> 
> I believe that if we continue to provide an useful structure, then the
> community will continue to build itself, in the way the community sees
> fit. 

We have grown to the size where we don't have structure anymore because no
one follows it. Case in point, code which has been checked in which does not
follow the standards we do have.

> As I understand it, the point of the ASF is promote the development of
> codebases in the Apache Way. As a administrative convenience, the
> Jakarta project was born to host these codebases. Whether or not the
> codebases interact or cross-pollinate or form a larger community, I
> think, is irrelevant. If the codebases want to do this, fine. If the
> codebases don't want to do this, also fine.

I don't agree with that at all. If the above is the case, then we are no
better than a very public Sourceforge.

> Cross-pollination, when it happens, it a great thing. But it should not
> be the test of Jakarta. The only test is whether our teams are
> meritocratic, and are happily using that meritocracy to create great
> software. 

Clearly we do not share similar values and opinions.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cross-pollination

[Jon Scott Stevens]

I care what is openly documented on websites. A mailing list discussion is
not an open discussion because unless you are privy to reading all the mail,
you don't know about it.

-jon

on 1/7/02 11:08 AM, "Scott Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It has been discussed on general@xml.  Check the archives.
> 
> Scott
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:10 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: Cross-pollination
>> 
>> 
>> on 1/7/02 9:03 AM, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> One thing is for sure: both Gump and Forrest want to go in this
>>> direction: provide solid technological infrastructure in order for
>>> efforts to communicate, interoperate, share visions and
>> exchange code, 
>>> ideas and solutions.
>> 
>> If Forrest is so great and all about 'communicating' and
>> 'interoperating', how come I don't see any mention of what
>> the f*ck it is anywhere on *.apache.org? What the heck is it?
>> 
>> -jon

-- 
Standard rules apply: Ask any questions, and you get the job. ;-)


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cross-pollination

[Ted Husted]

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> One thing is for sure: both Gump and Forrest want to go in this
> direction: provide solid technological infrastructure in order for
> efforts to communicate, interoperate, share visions and exchange code,
> ideas and solutions.
> 
> Food for thought.

+1 

I believe that if we continue to provide an useful structure, then the
community will continue to build itself, in the way the community sees
fit. 

As I understand it, the point of the ASF is promote the development of
codebases in the Apache Way. As a administrative convenience, the
Jakarta project was born to host these codebases. Whether or not the
codebases interact or cross-pollinate or form a larger community, I
think, is irrelevant. If the codebases want to do this, fine. If the
codebases don't want to do this, also fine. 

Cross-pollination, when it happens, it a great thing. But it should not
be the test of Jakarta. The only test is whether our teams are
meritocratic, and are happily using that meritocracy to create great
software. 


-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Building Java web applications with Struts.
-- Tel +1 585 737-3463.
-- Web http://www.husted.com/struts/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 10:51 AM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
>> 
>> As far as I'm concerned, all Gump shows us is that projects have managed to
>> quit breaking each others interfaces. Gump shows us that documents such as
>> this:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ...have had an effect on people's mentalities. Those are not my issues with
>> Jakarta at this point.
> 
> My perception is the other way around.  Documents like that were routinely
> ignored (sound familiar?) until somebody(*) took initiative to find an
> effective way to bring these issues to everybody's attention.  I do have
> all of the published logs archived, and can provide copious examples to
> back up my belief.

There were no documents like that before I wrote it.

Just like there was no nag.pl before I came up with the idea to implement
it.

If anything, you initially resisted nag.pl. One way I know this is because
as the PMC Chair, you refused make it a requirement of projects to have it
enabled. Instead, you relied on social pressures to work their magic. This
actually extended the amount of time it took for people to adopt Gump and
raise its awareness. It also caused quite a bit of pain (as you say below)
as projects had votes against it.

> I also see this as the path to resolving a number of related issues.  For
> example, find or create a style checker tool.  I'll gladly run it nightly
> against all Jakarta code bases and publish the results.  And one by one
> convince each project that it is their best interest for me to nag them on
> it.
> Not everybody realizes it, but getting people to accept nagging on cross
> project dependency failures was an uphill battle.  At least one subproject
> even had a vote on it.

Exactly. I feel that this lack of semblance of control from the top has
actually hurt us. Looking at the success of other projects which have more
control at the top makes me realize this. Jakarta to me is now a complete
anarchy where people can do whatever they want without having to worry about
consequences over the long term.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Cross-pollination

[Scott Sanders]

It has been discussed on general@xml.  Check the archives.

Scott

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:10 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Cross-pollination
> 
> 
> on 1/7/02 9:03 AM, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > One thing is for sure: both Gump and Forrest want to go in this
> > direction: provide solid technological infrastructure in order for 
> > efforts to communicate, interoperate, share visions and 
> exchange code, 
> > ideas and solutions.
> 
> If Forrest is so great and all about 'communicating' and 
> 'interoperating', how come I don't see any mention of what 
> the f*ck it is anywhere on *.apache.org? What the heck is it?
> 
> -jon
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For 
> additional commands, 
> e-mail: 
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 10:33 07.01.2002 -0800, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
>on 1/7/02 10:29 AM, "Jim Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, until the documentation is made part of the formal committing process,
>> the jakarta tools will only be valuable to the people who developed them.
>> 
>> I know that I am opening myself up to a serious flame, but that is the way I
>> see it.
>> 
>> Jim Scott
>
>No flame. That is a really good suggestion and one of the better $0.00 I
>have heard in a long time...
>
>The bigger issue would then to be to have Sam (the current PMC chair and
>person with the potential for authority) to take authority and mandate such
>an action over Jakarta.


Excellent topic. Much more neutral than code conventions. 

Who is going to judge the quality of documentation and enforce such a
rule if it is ever enunciated?

Let us instate a system based on referendum, where the shareholders
can directly intervene in making laws. By "shareholders", I mean
developers with commit rights.

To avoid voting on trivialities, a referendum would require the
support of at least five committers to acquire the "valid"
status. After a possible but short delay, a valid referendum is
submitted to shareholder vote. The result of the vote determines
whether the referendum is accepted or rejected. An accepted referendum
becomes law of Jakarta. 

This procedure is undeniably heavy. However, so is debating issues
without ever deciding. The advantage of a referendum is that once a decision is made 
you get peer pressure for free. Not PMC pressure, not chairman pressure but peer 
pressure!

Too heavy handed? OK, what is the alternative? 


--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Sam Ruby]

Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
>
> As far as I'm concerned, all Gump shows us is that projects have managed to
> quit breaking each others interfaces. Gump shows us that documents such as
> this:
>
>  
>
> ...have had an effect on people's mentalities. Those are not my issues with
> Jakarta at this point.

My perception is the other way around.  Documents like that were routinely
ignored (sound familiar?) until somebody(*) took initiative to find an
effective way to bring these issues to everybody's attention.  I do have
all of the published logs archived, and can provide copious examples to
back up my belief.

I also see this as the path to resolving a number of related issues.  For
example, find or create a style checker tool.  I'll gladly run it nightly
against all Jakarta code bases and publish the results.  And one by one
convince each project that it is their best interest for me to nag them on
it.

Not everybody realizes it, but getting people to accept nagging on cross
project dependency failures was an uphill battle.  At least one subproject
even had a vote on it.

- Sam Ruby

(*) a significant portion of the credit goes to Jon Stevens who contributed
the initial implementation of what became nag.pl.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:

> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:56:30 +0100
> From: Ceki Gülcü <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content
>
> At 19:00 07.01.2002 +0100, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> >> Jon wrote:
> >>
> >> There is no community. There is projects which have people who follow them
> >> blindly.
> >
> >I do not believe that.
> >
> >What I am seeing are the same signs Sam sees:
> >
> >> Sam wrote:
> >>
> >> In my, admittedly biased, perspective, I see significant improvement in
> >> terms of community over the course of the past eleven months or so.  For
> >> starters, the following results would have been inconceivable at the time:
> >>
> >>http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/2002-01-07/
> >>
> >> I also see an initiative by Ted and others to build a commons are which
> >> promotes reuse.  Conscientious objectors notwithstanding, they plow
> >> relentlessly ahead, continuing to make incremental and enduring progress.
>
> Projects building cleanly is very nice and gump is great. However, I
> would not declare victory just yet. (Very few people can resists Sam's
> polite nudges.) Jon's concerns about the existence of a community are
> valid and should not be lightly dismissed.
>

They aren't being dismissed, but the sky isn't falling either.

Perusing Gump's cross reference page is quite interesting:

  http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/latest/xref.html

Just to pick an example of a package I'm involved in, check out the line
for commons-digester:

   ... jakarta-turbine-tdk maven scarab ...

as well as the developers who have recently been adding features and
tests.  That would have *never* happened a year ago (when this code was
inside the Struts community and Commons didn't exist).

The point from Jon that I *do* dismiss is his feeling that there should be
one and only one implementation of any particular functionality -- "one
size fits all" is a very rare phenomenon in my experience, and having some
choice is helpful.


> With the pending/rumored commercialization of SourceForge there will be
> even larger hordes of projects wanting to be hosted under Jakarta.
> What will we do then?

We will continue to do what we've done in the past -- reject projects that
only want the "name recognition" value of being under Apache, and don't
have a development community compatible with Apache's style.  That's much
more important than whether it's server-side versus client-side, or in one
repository versus another.

> Regards, Ceki
>

Craig


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Craig R. McClanahan]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Sam Ruby wrote:

>
>I continue to see the last 11 months as a period of progress.
>

+1

> - Sam Ruby
>

Craig McClanahan


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 10:29 AM, "Jim Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> IMHO, until the documentation is made part of the formal committing process,
> the jakarta tools will only be valuable to the people who developed them.
> 
> I know that I am opening myself up to a serious flame, but that is the way I
> see it.
> 
> Jim Scott

No flame. That is a really good suggestion and one of the better $0.00 I
have heard in a long time...

The bigger issue would then to be to have Sam (the current PMC chair and
person with the potential for authority) to take authority and mandate such
an action over Jakarta.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 19:02 07.01.2002 +0100, you wrote:
>> Being PMC chair isn't going to help solve any problems because of
>> our system of checks and balances.
>
>I just love "checks and balances".
>It is the least perfect system except for all the others already tried.

Did you know that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were fearful 
of "popular rule" and hence the convoluted way for electing the US President? See 
Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 of the US Constitution. Amendment 12 changed the 
election system such that the people of a state voted directly for the electors 
instead of the state legislatures selecting the electors. The current system is still 
somewhat outdated as the recent Presidential elections have shown.

I am bringing this up because fear of popular rule is deeply ingrained in our psyches. 
This was so in 1787, still is in 2001. 

Anyway, I am not suggesting we create a system of checks and balances with judges, 
legislature and an executive. Jakarta is too small for that. Jakarta is much more like 
a software company then a nation. It should be run as such. Jakarta committers can be 
viewed as the shareholders of Jakarta.

In Switzerland, the ultimate decisional power of a corporation is vested in the 
general assembly, that is the assembly of shareholders. The same holds true in the 
rest of Europe and most probably in the US and the rest of the world as well.

We are all volunteers. Thus, it is impossible to dictate to Apache developers. 
However, they can be convinced, cajoled or gently pressured. Peer pressure is 
extremely effective but requires consensus. Consensus about the community's will, not 
your or my will, but the larger group's will, can be achieved as a result of a vote. 

In short: We vote. We get a decision about what we want. We implement what we want.  

Does it make sense? Regards, Ceki


>Have fun,
>Paulo Gaspar
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:04 PM
>>
>>
>> on 1/7/02 8:55 AM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >  Be forewarned that the Apache tradition is to allow people with enough
>> >  "fire in their belly" to tackle a particular problem that is important
>> >  to them the freedom to do so.  If the problems you see are something
>> >  that you feel need tackling and the only effective way in
>> which this can
>> >  be accomplished is for you to become the Jakarta PMC chair,
>> then I could
>> >  certainly arrange for an election to take place.  I can't guarantee the
>> >  results of the election or the success of your quest, but I can do my
>> >  part to enable you to pursue your goals.
>> >
>> >  Think about this for a while, and let me know if this is a
>> path you wish
>> >  to pursue.
>> >
>> > - Sam Ruby
>>
>> Being PMC chair isn't going to help solve any problems because of
>> our system
>> of checks and balances.
>>
>> In other words, I don't see PMC chair being any more important or
>> special or
>> enabled than simply being a member of the PMC, which I already am.
>>
>> As I already said, I also don't think I have enough backing to:
>>
>> #1. Get voted into being the PMC chair.
>> #2. Make enough of a change to help turn Jakarta around from a slow
>> spiraling death.
>>
>> -jon
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
>For additional commands, e-mail: 

--
Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 9:53 AM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  I continue to see the last 11 months as a period of progress.
> 
> - Sam Ruby

I never said there hasn't been progress. However, I don't think that
progress is enough to keep the Jakarta project from imploding.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 19:00 07.01.2002 +0100, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
>> Jon wrote:
>>
>> There is no community. There is projects which have people who follow them
>> blindly.
>
>I do not believe that.
>
>What I am seeing are the same signs Sam sees:
>
>> Sam wrote:
>>
>> In my, admittedly biased, perspective, I see significant improvement in
>> terms of community over the course of the past eleven months or so.  For
>> starters, the following results would have been inconceivable at the time:
>>
>>http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/2002-01-07/
>>
>> I also see an initiative by Ted and others to build a commons are which
>> promotes reuse.  Conscientious objectors notwithstanding, they plow
>> relentlessly ahead, continuing to make incremental and enduring progress.

Projects building cleanly is very nice and gump is great. However, I would not declare 
victory just yet. (Very few people can resists Sam's polite nudges.) Jon's concerns 
about the existence of a community are valid and should not be lightly dismissed. 

With the pending/rumored commercialization of SourceForge there will be even larger 
hordes of projects wanting to be hosted under Jakarta.  What will we do then? Regards, 
Ceki


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Sam Ruby]

Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> Being PMC chair isn't going to help solve any problems because of our
system
> of checks and balances.
>
> In other words, I don't see PMC chair being any more important or special
or
> enabled than simply being a member of the PMC, which I already am.

Take a moment to review the second paragraph of Section 6.3 of
.  Others in this position
may choose to interpret this more liberally than I do.

> As I already said, I also don't think I have enough backing to:
>
>#1. Get voted into being the PMC chair.

   That is something that you could certainly work to change.

>#2. Make enough of a change to help turn Jakarta around from a slow
 spiraling death.

   I continue to see the last 11 months as a period of progress.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 10:00 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What I am seeing are the same signs Sam sees:
> 
>> Sam wrote:
>> 
>> In my, admittedly biased, perspective, I see significant improvement in
>> terms of community over the course of the past eleven months or so.  For
>> starters, the following results would have been inconceivable at the time:
>> 
>>http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/2002-01-07/
>> 
>> I also see an initiative by Ted and others to build a commons are which
>> promotes reuse.  Conscientious objectors notwithstanding, they plow
>> relentlessly ahead, continuing to make incremental and enduring progress.

As far as I'm concerned, all Gump shows us is that projects have managed to
quit breaking each others interfaces. Gump shows us that documents such as
this:



...have had an effect on people's mentalities. Those are not my issues with
Jakarta at this point.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

> Being PMC chair isn't going to help solve any problems because of
> our system of checks and balances.

I just love "checks and balances".
It is the least perfect system except for all the others already tried.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 6:04 PM
>
>
> on 1/7/02 8:55 AM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >  Be forewarned that the Apache tradition is to allow people with enough
> >  "fire in their belly" to tackle a particular problem that is important
> >  to them the freedom to do so.  If the problems you see are something
> >  that you feel need tackling and the only effective way in
> which this can
> >  be accomplished is for you to become the Jakarta PMC chair,
> then I could
> >  certainly arrange for an election to take place.  I can't guarantee the
> >  results of the election or the success of your quest, but I can do my
> >  part to enable you to pursue your goals.
> >
> >  Think about this for a while, and let me know if this is a
> path you wish
> >  to pursue.
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
>
> Being PMC chair isn't going to help solve any problems because of
> our system
> of checks and balances.
>
> In other words, I don't see PMC chair being any more important or
> special or
> enabled than simply being a member of the PMC, which I already am.
>
> As I already said, I also don't think I have enough backing to:
>
> #1. Get voted into being the PMC chair.
> #2. Make enough of a change to help turn Jakarta around from a slow
> spiraling death.
>
> -jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Paulo Gaspar]

> Jon wrote:
>
> There is no community. There is projects which have people who follow them
> blindly.

I do not believe that.

What I am seeing are the same signs Sam sees:

> Sam wrote:
>
> In my, admittedly biased, perspective, I see significant improvement in
> terms of community over the course of the past eleven months or so.  For
> starters, the following results would have been inconceivable at the time:
>
>http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/2002-01-07/
>
> I also see an initiative by Ted and others to build a commons are which
> promotes reuse.  Conscientious objectors notwithstanding, they plow
> relentlessly ahead, continuing to make incremental and enduring progress.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 5:05 PM
>
>
> on 1/7/02 3:14 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would still prefer having both around.
> >
> > There are users and committers for each that are not
> > willing to move to the other.
> >
> > IMO, community rules.
>
> There is no community. There is projects which have people who follow them
> blindly.
>
> -jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Cross-pollination

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 9:03 AM, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One thing is for sure: both Gump and Forrest want to go in this
> direction: provide solid technological infrastructure in order for
> efforts to communicate, interoperate, share visions and exchange code,
> ideas and solutions.

If Forrest is so great and all about 'communicating' and 'interoperating',
how come I don't see any mention of what the f*ck it is anywhere on
*.apache.org? What the heck is it?

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: On unity and coherence [was Re: [Request For Comment] POI@apache]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

MY APPOLOGIES.  I realize some of these have already been covered and
that this is "out of step" with time.  I got some messages back because 
roadrunner (my ISP) seems to be using a Windows SMTP server.  (deduction
I make from the outages corresponding with the latest windows
code-red-and-friends):



> > >> I am not trying to be combative - I have watched this thread (and
>> participated) with growing discomfort.  I have to say that I think
that
>> bringing XML and Jakarta together might destroy the thing we are
>> supposedly
>> trying to 'save' (again, I don't get the problem...), namely the
>> community
>> that each group has.  Larger isn't always better.
> > I kinda agree with you on that.

> Ted didn't write that.  I did.

I realize that.  It was a cut and paste error.  I have to quote manually
because I get the digest form of this list.  



> > Maybe its not yet time for a vote.  Let me state this again and make
it
> very clear.  POI has many users and many uses.  No one I know of is
> using POI on the client.

>Maybe you have some marketing problems? :)

I doubt it.  We're #4 on sourceforge :-p.  

Though you might be right.  A developer on the POI project called me
John Lennon today and implied I might be shot.  ;-p

> POI is as client-side as Tomcat is.

>Why do you say that?  It is used on the server side, and that's
>fantastic,
>but in my opinion (note that I recognize I am  a complete outsider to
>your
>project who would be defined as a user) it seems client side.

No you'd not be defined as a user.  You've not used POI ;-)

>If I had a need for something like this (and I bet I will at some
>point),
>and I had the choice to look at either>
>
>  a)  jakarta, the apache java server-side focused project or
> 
>  b)  floccinoccinihilipilificator*, the apache java client-side
>project


>I would choose b), as I think of word and excel as a client-side
>thingy.  No
>matter that my use is server-side...

So what about the stuff to write PDF Files?  What about Batik?  (renders
graphic files).  You have a very unique point of view on what is "server
side" and what is client side.  I'm afraid we'll have to disagree
philosophically on that.  Basically if in my opinion if it runs ON THE
SERVER and is practically never used ON THE CLIENT, its server-side.  


>> (Tomcat is
>> used by Netbeans a pure Java-IDE on the client!).  HTML is for use on
>> the client right?

>Yep.  But its a markup definition, not an API implementation.

And Avalon is a framework (which could be used clientside).  Log4J is
used by HSSF currently.  


>> So is a library that outputs in HTML is clientside or
>> serverside? 

>Serverside generally, as the canonical model of HTML use is the web,
>with a
>clear delineation of server and client.  However, it indeed has
>clientside
>uses - take for example any help system that outputs HTML within a
>monolithic desktop application.

This is reaching philosophical levels.  Log4J is an API for logging as
is LogKit.  Both are just as useful in both places.  (And :-o POI uses
Log4J...  If we use geometric theorems here then that makes Log4J
clientside too ;-) ).

>Conversely, I would argue that Excel is a totally client-side
>technology,
>and therefore a library that works with XLS files is clientside
>generally as
>the canonical model of Excel is on the desktop.  However, it indeed has
>serverside uses

The browser is on the desktop too.  I can see we're not really going to
come to agreement on what is server and client side.  ( I avoid such
philosophical discussions...they have no logical conclusion ).

> Cocoon publishes documents that are generally read on the
> client right? 

>Yes, but it's more than an API, right?  (I don't know much about
>cocoon...)

It has a Servlet or you can run Cocoon from the command line as well.
Cocoon is an XML publishing framework.  

>>From what I read, POI is an API that accesses data in XLS files... 
>Theres a
>huge difference.

NO.  Please take another look.  We do full READ AND WRITE libraries or
its not worth my time. Document generation and reading.  (I wouldn't
bother to bring an API for reading into the world, too many ways to fry
that fish already)

POI is a project providing complete ports of OLE2 Compound Document
based file formats

POIFS is a pure java port of OLE2 CDF - READ AND WRITE

HSSF is a pure java port of Excel file format - READ AND WRITE

HSSF Serializer is a Cocoon 2 serializer using HSSF - it serializes XML
spreadsheets as XLS (Excel not XSL :-p).  It shares the same XML tag
library as gnumeric.

The HSSF Generator will be written soon.  (refactoring.  My $ says this
time next week we have the HSSF Generator proof of concept nailed out)
The HDF library is going to kick off shortly.  It will be a full port of
DOC format.

>And Cocoon isn't part of Jakarta, is it? :)

No.  That wasn't the point.  It was server versus client-side.

>I don't necessarily think that xml.apache.org is the right place
>either,
>although I am not a mem

Re: On unity and coherence [was Re: [Request For Comment] POI@apache]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

MY APPOLOGIES.  I realize some of these have already been covered and
that this is "out of step" with time.  I got some messages back because 
roadrunner (my ISP) seems to be using a Windows SMTP server.  (deduction
I make from the outages corresponding with the latest windows
code-red-and-friends):


>Playing Devil's advocate.  I think it's fair to push back on adding
>things
>to Jakarta...

Fair enough.  

On 1/5/02 9:53 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please read these posts and then tell me where you're not clear?
> >
http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40jakarta.apache.org/msg02681.html

>Isn't it fair to guess that the majority of your server side use would
>be
>reading documents for presentation, indexing, searching?  However, you

No.  you're forgetting about reporting and publishing.  Some crazy
people also use HSSF to do XLS database dumps.  (I said they do it, not
that I think its a good idea)

 >point
>out in the above link that the thing that makes POI special is it's
>ability
>to *write*?  What's the % of mainly writing to mainly reading on the
>serverside?

Thats a good question, I have no solid figures.   

By my estimates it fluctuates greatly.  I'd say we'll see a trend that
will eventually level off to 50/50.  If you'd have asked in December I'd
have said more read.  This week it seems everyone is very focused on
generation.

> http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40jakarta.apache.org/msg02685.html

>Paulo might use VB to make a client side app, but I wouldn't if I
>wanted
>portability, especially if I was looking to the handheld or embedded
>application that could access a document remotely...

most people see embedded as a whole 'nother beast.  You'd also not use
POI for embedded.  You know why?  M$ uses completely different file
formats for the embedded versions.  

Anyhow the argument is not that POI could NEVER be used on the client
side, its that its far less useful on the client side. 

If I were coding to Excel on the client I'd write a macro.  VBA would
work (I suppose...I dunno I have a palm v) and both the client and the
pocket pc.  Okay... I wouldn't code to Excel on the client because
itsyucky.  

> http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40jakarta.apache.org/msg02690.html

>No comment, as it's an agreeable followup to the above.

Sorry, maybe that was the wrong message.


-Andy

-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 8:55 AM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Be forewarned that the Apache tradition is to allow people with enough
>  "fire in their belly" to tackle a particular problem that is important
>  to them the freedom to do so.  If the problems you see are something
>  that you feel need tackling and the only effective way in which this can
>  be accomplished is for you to become the Jakarta PMC chair, then I could
>  certainly arrange for an election to take place.  I can't guarantee the
>  results of the election or the success of your quest, but I can do my
>  part to enable you to pursue your goals.
> 
>  Think about this for a while, and let me know if this is a path you wish
>  to pursue.
> 
> - Sam Ruby

Being PMC chair isn't going to help solve any problems because of our system
of checks and balances.

In other words, I don't see PMC chair being any more important or special or
enabled than simply being a member of the PMC, which I already am.

As I already said, I also don't think I have enough backing to:

#1. Get voted into being the PMC chair.
#2. Make enough of a change to help turn Jakarta around from a slow
spiraling death.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Cross-pollination

[Stefano Mazzocchi]

The only concept that I found worth talking about (apologies if I missed
others covered by the incredible noise!) is Sam's suggestion that
'degree of cross-pollination' should be used as a metric to measure the
value of merging efforts.

Of all the other proposed metrics, I find this one the most appealing
because is *not* technology oriented.

The current effort merging guidelines (code donations approuval) are
strictly based on the presumed health of the community behind the
donation. The reason for this is that merging healthy communities brings
value since it expands the global IQ.

Now, Sam points out that this might not be enough, as many efforts don't
cross-pollinate, thus fail to increase the 'genetic variety' of the
community.

In society, two terms are used for this 'melting pot' (when cultural
cross-pollination exists) and 'mixing bowl' (when cultural groups are
forced live side by side, but don't share much).

Sourceforge is the ultimate 'mixing bowl' and we don't want that.

But is Jakarta (or XML) really a 'melting pot'?

Would a single container increase or decrease such cross-pollination?

Would POI increase it more on Jakarta, more on XML or more remaining it
on Sourceforge?

Would factoring out a bunch of efforts to 'tools.apache.org' increase it
or decrease it?

Would moving the velocity-based stylesheet language to XML increase or
decrease it?

One thing is for sure: both Gump and Forrest want to go in this
direction: provide solid technological infrastructure in order for
efforts to communicate, interoperate, share visions and exchange code,
ideas and solutions.

Food for thought.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi  One must still have chaos in oneself to be
  able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Sam Ruby]

Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> As for me fixing Jakarta...I'm not sure I have enough people interested in
> helping fixing Jakarta. For example, Sam (our current leader) and others see
> nothing wrong with the current process. I'm also not certain I have enough
> energy to fight anymore...especially now that we have so many people willing
> to give their $0.00 opinion and not back that up with action.

I certainly see things wrong with the current process, but apparently since
I don't see the same issues that you do as critical, I therefore see
nothing wrong.

In my, admittedly biased, perspective, I see significant improvement in
terms of community over the course of the past eleven months or so.  For
starters, the following results would have been inconceivable at the time:

   http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/gump/2002-01-07/

I also see an initiative by Ted and others to build a commons are which
promotes reuse.  Conscientious objectors notwithstanding, they plow
relentlessly ahead, continuing to make incremental and enduring progress.

Meanwhile, I will repeat something I said on this list three days ago:

   Be forewarned that the Apache tradition is to allow people with enough
   "fire in their belly" to tackle a particular problem that is important
   to them the freedom to do so.  If the problems you see are something
   that you feel need tackling and the only effective way in which this can
   be accomplished is for you to become the Jakarta PMC chair, then I could
   certainly arrange for an election to take place.  I can't guarantee the
   results of the election or the success of your quest, but I can do my
   part to enable you to pursue your goals.

   Think about this for a while, and let me know if this is a path you wish
   to pursue.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 2:45 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:33, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>> Peter,
>> 
>> So are you proposing to become a log4j committer?
> 
> Would there be a point to that?


Exactly. Collaboration on a single logging tool would be a terrible idea.


-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 1/7/02 3:14 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I would still prefer having both around.
> 
> There are users and committers for each that are not
> willing to move to the other.
> 
> IMO, community rules.

There is no community. There is projects which have people who follow them
blindly.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Jon Scott Stevens]

Peter,

In this email, all I hear you doing is pointing fingers. Yes, we fucked up
along the road of learning. That is to be expected. None of us are perfect.
If we hadn't fucked up, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. Duh.

As for me fixing Jakarta...I'm not sure I have enough people interested in
helping fixing Jakarta. For example, Sam (our current leader) and others see
nothing wrong with the current process. I'm also not certain I have enough
energy to fight anymore...especially now that we have so many people willing
to give their $0.00 opinion and not back that up with action.

Honestly, I'm considering leaving entirely...or at least doing what I see
everyone else doing...putting their head in a hole and just doing whatever
the fuck they want to do. Not helpful, but like all of you, I don't have
time either.

The failure of Jakarta will be in the reality that no one has the time or
energy to keep it running.

-jon

on 1/7/02 1:55 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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 pro

RE: RE: jdbc driver an ms access

[Andrew C. Oliver]

> Before anyone uses this, I would suggest you look at the bugs in the
>BugParade about the bridge. Its not thread-safe, which can cause
>significant
>problems for a multi-threaded environment like Tomcat.  It can be used,
>but
>you must be careful in your usage or else you will cause yourself lots
>of
>problems (crashes).
>
>Randy

IF that concerns you do not use Access.  Crashing is better then the
things Access does.  ;-p


-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

[Sam Ruby]

Peter Donald wrote:
>
> > > > So are you proposing to become a log4j committer?
> > >
> > > Would there be a point to that?
> >
> > It depends on whether and how you want to contribute.
> > There still is a lot of work to do. Ceki
>
> And theres the rub.

These one (or two) line answers don't do much to illuminate the issues.
Let me try to rectify this:

Ceki, fundamental to Avalon is a design pattern that is referred to as
"Inversion of Control".  This is fairly concisely described at the
following web page:
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/framework/inversion-of-control.html ,
including an example which maps this concept into exactly this domain.  Can
you conceive of any possibility where you and Peter could work together on
a "log4j v2.0" which conforms to what amounts to a set of restrictions on
what a component can do?  Your answer above indicates that you have
preconceived notions as to how you would limit Peter's freedom to
participate.  Care to elaborate?

Peter, as you are well aware, I'm not overly thrilled with the way that
Avalon has participated in commons either.  I have been unable to locate an
adequate archive to point to, but recently I felt compelled recently
(2001-12-26) to write the following words:

   There are quite a few projects under the Apache umbrella that I see as
   simultaneously unwilling to depend on others, and puzzled that more
   people are not willing to depend on them.

   > Do I want to increase the Avalon community?  Definitely!  I don't see how
   > moving Avalon code outside of Avalon increases *Avalon's* community.  I can
   > see how it increases *Commons* community.

   Sigh.

   Turbine and Struts are generally polar opposites, but at least they can
   share a set of collections classes.

To drive this point home, the subject line of this thread identifies
exactly one such set of duplication - between Turbine and Struts.  My
nagging lead Berin to propose moving the Avalon collections code into
commons, to which you responded, and I quote, "+/- 0".

You can say all you want that you predicted how commons would turn out -
but lack of participation by people such as yourself have made such
predictions self fulfilling prophesies.

- Sam Ruby


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: On unity and coherence [was Re: [Request For Comment] POI @ apache]

[Paulo Gaspar]

As a newbie (only 1.5 years around) I found the small bio posted by
Stefano on the Cocoon-dev list very interesting and instructive.

This post was triggered by curiosity and know-your-community concerns
that popped up in a couple of Cocoon-dev threads less than 2 months
ago. IMO, the fact that it is written in the first person only helps.

To ease the task of searching for it, I am just attaching it. Maybe
Ted and others can use it as an historic source.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -Original Message-
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 3:48 PM
>
>
> Ted Husted wrote:
>
> > At this point, I'm reconciled to do more work on the Jakata site using
> > XML in the old-fashioned way.
>
> I can't resonate more with your feelings. That's exactly what made me
> started the 'forrest' effort: the coherence on xml.apache.org and the
> ease of update has been slowly falling apart until now when people can't
> even run in on their machines without getting fonts problems (yeah,
> blocked by fonts problems! go figure!)
>
> > We have some unratified guidelines that expand on the ones (you?)
> > originally set down.
>
> No, that wasn't me to edit that page, even if much was taken from my
> java.apache constitution (as you indicate below), which on my side, took
> from the old dev.apache.org guidelines for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/site/proposal.html
> >
> > If you were able to review them, I would of course very much like to
> > have your comments before making a final update and calling for a vote.
>
> I'm honored. I'll do it ASAP.
>
> > I would also like to add more rationale for some of the guidelines. The
> > recent dicussion regarding coding conventions had less to do with the
> > conventions themselves, and more to do with why we even have
> > conventions. (And having conventions, why don't we enforce them.)
>
> Good point.
>
> > As Jakarta grows, it becomes more and more important that we have better
> > ways to introduce peoole into the fold. Right now, there is a tendency
> > to make someone a Committer and let them find their own way around. At
> > this time, I'd like to go to work on a Committer's guidebook that would
> > help explain how things are done (starting with How to do a Release --
> > which raised the JAR discussion the other day).
>
> Oh, gosh, you are probably unaware of the fact that I'm the one that
> continously pisses people off on the ASF member list (unfortunately
> private) about having those 'committer guidelines' up and running. James
> Davidson and I were the one who made the page on how to setup your SSH
> tunnel for CVS.
>
> Yes, this is the right direction, but people must commit to keep those
> guidelines up 2 date and many people (expecially apache root's) failed
> miserably to do it.
>
> Also we must make those easy to find.
>
> Again, Forrest will help.
>
> > I think the real solution to improving the noise:signal ratio is to move
> > away from the "oral (email)" tradition we have now, and move back toward
> > providing more grassroots documentation, as you did in the "preamble" to
> > the original constition.
> >
> > http://java.apache.org/main/constitution.html
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > An actual history of Jakarta might also be useful to give people a
> > better perspective. Here's one passages I tucked away (to be joined by
> > your own snippets of late).
> >
> > Pier to Jon - Thu, 21 Dec 2000
> > > We've traveled a long
> > > way together, from my very first steps in open-source land in
> January 1998,
> > > to our marvelous meeting at the first ApacheCON in October
> 1998, the Jakarta
> > > room meeting, all JavaONEs, and all we did together to bring
> this project
> > > where it is right now.
> >
> > Pier again, same day
> > > And we, as the newly formed Apache Software Foundation,
> accepted that code
> > > in donation as a point of start for the Jakarta Project. I
> was there, in
> > > that meeting room, that day when we outlined how the process
> would have
> > > evolved, with Jon, Stefano and Brian. And I was there, on
> stage at JavaONE,
> > > when Patricia Sueltz announced the spinoff of the project
> againg with Jon,
> > > Stefano and Brian. If that has been a wrong decision, we four
> are the people
> > > to blame...
> >
> > A coherent history might help with many of the questions about why we do
> > things the way we do. (Or why we don't do some things at all.) I think
> > clearly documenting the Apache Way would be an important first step to
> > unifying the Apache Projects.
>
> Great point. I absolutely agree.
>
> > I would also like to personally commend Jon with his efforts to better
> > document Jakarta. He has put a lot into the Web site (probably 90%), and
> > we all owe him a great debt.
>
> Oh, I never even thought about questioning this.
>
> I personally owe everything to Jon: without his kind messages, I
> wouldn't have remained around the community enough to get the 'apache
> fe