In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dirk Verbeeck writes:
The point I wanted to make was only about how I would try to attract
more active developers and not about the usefulness of the mentioned
projects.
Point taken. I'm totally on the same page as you and agree with
all of your suggestions.
On Dec 21, 2003, at 3:20 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
I might have overlooked something in the whole flood about this topic.
Allow me to add that a move into Apache Commons might have our Java
flavour sort of shaded. A move out of Jakarta Commons, however, might
free our projects from the
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I don't value the ORO and
other sub projects. I personally use regexp every day as a part of the
castor schema validation and couldn't do without it.
The point I wanted to make was only about how I would try to attract
more active developers and not
Hi Justin,
I'm sorry to say that this mail demonstrates there is still a
misunderstanding about how jakarta-commons works and its goals.
The answer to the question how would a Jakarta Commons TLP differ
from an Apache Commons TLP? is simple. The only difference would be
that J-C does focus on
I might have overlooked something in the whole flood about this topic.
Allow me to add that a move into Apache Commons might have our Java
flavour sort of shaded. A move out of Jakarta Commons, however, might
free our projects from the server-only orientation of Jakarta project
in general.
Speaking of JXPath and OJB integration... one thing that has been
brought up a couple times is an XPath style query engine for OJB. I
would love to see this happen, and the process of doing it for OJB 1.1
will help to make sure that the OTM API is as flexible as we
want^H^H^H^H need it to be
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
From: Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+i. I want it to maintain the community, but I want Jakarta to be the
first to move to Brian Behlendorf's email a year ago in which he foresaw
sourceforge-like foundry's. I'd like Jakarta to shirk all of its
projects
and set itself
Do you think that moving JXPath to another location will increase
visibility/community? I don't think so.
It will be just another menu item like ORO, Regexp, BCEL, ...
There are better ways to attact more users IMHO, doing more
announcements (milestone/final releases), provide examples of
Maybe Jarkarta should take up the role of a [EMAIL PROTECTED] gatekeeper.
Something like the java foundary at sourceforge but with the
additional task to bring all the (independent) java communities
together and provide a vision for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] future.
-- Dirk
Henri Yandell wrote:
+1 for Matthew Harthrone's post.
The board installed the Apache Commons with the charter creation and
maintenance of open-source software related to reusable libraries and
components
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2002/board_minutes_2002_09_18.txt
and it was later affirmed that
The big difference is that, if J-C joins A-C, we don't necessarily
maintain our current release structures, rules, lists etc.
If A-C joins J-C, the J-C way of doing things becomes the initial A-C way
of doing things, and we fix the ones that are a problem for the new
projects.
A-C is 1 project
I think that a lot of this can be taken care of in the join, should J-C
join A-C in its entirety, since there will be a large group joining a
smaller one.
On Dec 20, 2003, at 5:19 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
The big difference is that, if J-C joins A-C, we don't necessarily
maintain our current
On Dec 18, 2003, at 7:50 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I too stick with the Java-centric theme. I don't want to seem overly
anti
other programming languages, its just that IMO j-c is better of as
just
Java.
a) Code standards, guidelines, packaging, naming, integration with
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Dec 18, 2003, at 7:50 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I too stick with the Java-centric theme. I don't want to seem overly
anti
other programming languages, its just that IMO j-c is better of as
just
Java.
a)
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Dec 18, 2003, at 7:50 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I too stick with the Java-centric theme. I don't want to seem overly
anti
other programming languages, its just that IMO j-c is better of as
just
Java.
From: Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+i. I want it to maintain the community, but I want Jakarta to be the
first to move to Brian Behlendorf's email a year ago in which he foresaw
sourceforge-like foundry's. I'd like Jakarta to shirk all of its
projects
and set itself up as a Java portal
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Hoegg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 11:09 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Commons - TLP
If that's the case, why not try to promote them to Jakarta proper? I
know little of jxpath, but Digester seems like it would fit
Morgan Delagrange wrote:
Hey all,
I've been hesitant to join the holy war, but what the
hell. By the way, for simplicity's sake I'll be
referring to Jakarta Commons, past present and future,
as a project. Get over it. :)
I would be rather in favour of a top-level project.
I feel Jakarta Commons
I too stick with the Java-centric theme. I don't want to seem overly anti
other programming languages, its just that IMO j-c is better of as just
Java.
a) Code standards, guidelines, packaging, naming, integration with JDK - all
are very Java specific, and are usefully captured in the charter.
IMHO, the Board made an error of judgement with the setting up of a-c. A
desire has been expressed to have one TLP for small reusable components,
which has been met with a repeated desire for a Java-centric area.
(Relatively few people oppose a java based commons TLP). Some solutions I
can think
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
(Relatively few people oppose a java based commons TLP). Some solutions I
can think of:
[relatively few within Jakarta, more outside I think]
1) j-c merges with a-c and we just have to get along. (Hen suggested a
variation on how to start
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:17:05PM -0800, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
--- Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your view is very akin to mine I think.
My suggested proposal is designed to basically get
us to agree on the idea
then we would propose to A-Commons that they join a
TLP
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 04:27:34PM -0500, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
...
2) a-c becomes an umbrella project housing a virtually independent java
commons, a C commons, etc. I don't believe the Board or existing a-c would
be happy with this.
I think
I agree with the statement that the Jakarta Commons charter needs an
update and there is also nothing against becoming a TLP and reporting
directly to the board.
But we should keep the Jakarta brand. Jakarta as the main java entry
point at Apache and as a provider for the java news/download is
The Jakarta brand may be interpreted to be: web-based server-side code.
It's definitely not [EMAIL PROTECTED] anymore.
It's only [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the same way that people thought Jakarta==Tomcat
and Jakarta was separate from ASF.
Xerces is a very good example of a group who could happily
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
I too stick with the Java-centric theme. I don't want to seem overly anti
other programming languages, its just that IMO j-c is better of as just
Java.
a) Code standards, guidelines, packaging, naming, integration with JDK - all
are very Java specific, and are usefully
Quoting Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, __matthewHawthorne wrote:
However, I'm not sure that I understand your suggestion about Jakarta
Commons becoming top level, and then being joined by Apache Commons. I
think it should be the other way around -- Jakarta
I'm fairly new to the Apache scene, but I think I like the idea. I
think that Jakarta Commons is buried down deeper than it should be.
Some of the projects such as [digester] and [jxpath] are so gosh darn
useful that they deserve to be in a more visible space.
However, I'm not sure that I
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, __matthewHawthorne wrote:
However, I'm not sure that I understand your suggestion about Jakarta
Commons becoming top level, and then being joined by Apache Commons. I
think it should be the other way around -- Jakarta Commons projects
should become Apache Commons
If that's the case, why not try to promote them to Jakarta proper? I
know little of jxpath, but Digester seems like it would fit under
Libraries, Tools, and APIs.
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net
__matthewHawthorne wrote:
I think that Jakarta Commons is buried down
30 matches
Mail list logo
