Rearranging Jakarta into different islands than the islands of today
doesn't convince me that the project will see any change in community
overlap
As you may have noticed on general@incubator.apache.org, I've raised this
issue in terms of communities based upon codebase oversight and
--- James Ring wrote:
Does CLI fit into the picture? Or do you feel that
there are issues with it
that would prevent it from becoming part of the
proposed JLC?
CLI has dependencies at present. A slimmed down CLIv2
might be appropriate. Question is whether we believe
this would be an
On 3/6/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- James Ring wrote:
Does CLI fit into the picture? Or do you feel that
there are issues with it
that would prevent it from becoming part of the
proposed JLC?
CLI has dependencies at present. A slimmed down CLIv2
might be
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to stop being negative, here is what I would like to happen next.
I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity named 'Jakarta
Language Components'.
This will be formed from the following codebases:
[lang]
[io]
On 3/6/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- James Ring wrote:
Does CLI fit into the picture? Or do you feel that
there are issues with it
that would prevent it from becoming part of the
proposed JLC?
CLI has dependencies at present. A slimmed down CLIv2
might be
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity named 'Jakarta
Language Components'.
snap/
For some, this may invoke an immediate negative reaction. But I'd ask
you to pause and reflect a while. This change allows a new
On 3/6/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
--- Henri Yandell wrote:
To effect this, I think that the sandbox should be at
the Jakarta level and not at the Commons level.
+1. But I think you may need a jakarta-dev list.
snap/
Yes, and this should also help in:
* Getting
On 3/6/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
It might make things simpler to draw up an entire future re-org of
Jakarta. See who gets dropped through the cracks and decide if we have
to kill, accept or leave them to stand alone. There are some obvious
ones for JWC, and some that
On 3/6/06, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/6/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
It might make things simpler to draw up an entire future re-org of
Jakarta. See who gets dropped through the cracks and decide if we have
to kill, accept or leave them to stand alone.
On 3/6/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/6/06, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/6/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
It might make things simpler to draw up an entire future re-org of
Jakarta. See who gets dropped through the cracks and decide
On 3/6/06, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
The key thing is to have it driven by people who
want to make it happen.
So who is going to make JWC happen :-)
snap/
Given that:
* I have the drive for working on the RDC taglib, and
* Taglibs committed itself to JWC last year
Phil Steitz wrote:
I disagree there, and that is what actually led me to move to +1 for
Stephen's proposal, when I have consistently argued against breaking
j-c up in the past. I think it is reasonable to attack the problem
(which, like some others I am not sure is as much a problem as some of
Henri Yandell wrote:
It all comes back to my main problem - there is no Jakarta community.
You're right about organic growth being the best way, let it happen.
JLC will head off and enjoy its health etc. For Jakarta as a whole
organic-growth of the subcommunities is not good.
I'd
Would it be possible for this proposal and modifications based on the
following 26 emails to be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for greater
discussion?
Hen
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to stop being negative, here is what I would like to happen next.
I hereby propose
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to stop being negative, here is what I would like to happen next.
I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity named 'Jakarta
Language Components'.
This will be formed from the following codebases:
[lang]
[io]
On 3/5/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to stop being negative, here is what I would like to happen next.
I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity named 'Jakarta
Language Components'.
This will be
On 3/5/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/5/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to stop being negative, here is what I would like to happen next.
I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity
Henri Yandell wrote:
-1.
My reason for being against the idea is that it's a continuation of
Jakarta as a set of communities without much overlap.
This proposal, as most others do simply represents reality - that
Jakarta does contain sub-communities. Maybe the Apache board has trouble
with
On 3/5/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/5/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1. Despite my general reluctance to break up the Commons community, I like
this. It creates a clearly focussed other-Commons that should leave both
communities healthy - and probably leave
Hi Stephen,
On Monday 06 March 2006 07:07, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Time to stop being negative, here is what I would like to happen next.
I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity named 'Jakarta
Language Components'.
This will be formed from the following codebases:
[lang]
On 3/5/06, Sandy McArthur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/5/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/5/06, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1. Despite my general reluctance to break up the Commons community, I
like
this. It creates a clearly focussed other-Commons that
It's not administatively forcing a separation, it's a natural
consequence
of a particular group of components growing up together and
graduating
with a common purpose. The HttpClient component grew into the
Jakarta HTTP
Components subproject, and the Jakarta Web Components subproject
will
On 3/6/06, Torsten Curdt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not administatively forcing a separation, it's a natural
consequence
of a particular group of components growing up together and
graduating
with a common purpose. The HttpClient component grew into the
Jakarta HTTP
Components
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
-1.
My reason for being against the idea is that it's a continuation of
Jakarta as a set of communities without much overlap.
This proposal, as most others do simply represents reality - that
Jakarta does contain
On 3/5/06, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/6/06, Torsten Curdt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not administatively forcing a separation, it's a natural
consequence
of a particular group of components growing up together and
graduating
with a common purpose. The
What about tagging the components? :-P
Gets a bit complicated to use tagging when mailing lists are involved.
Development discussions have to happen in a single place.
Sorry, should probably have used ;-P not just :-P
Was not meant serious - although it actually is an
interesting idea the
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to stop being negative, here is what I would like to happen next.
I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity named 'Jakarta
Language Components'.
This will be formed from the following codebases:
[lang]
[io]
On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[id] - on exit from sandbox
snip
- not have a sandbox
To effect this, I think that the sandbox should be at the Jakarta
level and not at the Commons level. What do you think?
Hen
28 matches
Mail list logo
