Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 10:48:42AM -, Danny Angus wrote: > Jon wrote: > > > 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. > > I've been in

Avalon, Commons, once again (Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content)

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:29:18PM +1100, Peter Donald wrote: ... > > 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

Re: Avalon, Commons, once again (Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content)

Paul Hammont wrote: > > There is some romance to extending the 'honor system' to the whole of > Jakarta. When we became committers we all treaded tentatively until > we'd fully earned the respect of the seasoned veterans in the project in > question. An 'open' Jakarta would be nice, but even wit

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

on 1/8/02 3:13 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so would collaboration on a web framework > > Pete This happened a long time ago (May 2000) on the PMC list: When Craig originally proposed Struts, I -1'd it. He assured me that he would be willing to collaborate together on Turbin

Re: Avalon, Commons, once again (Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content)

Sam, >I have quietly stated several times that I would prefer that a Jakarta >committer is a Jakarta committer. Gaging by the response I got each time, >I figured that then was not the time to push the issue. > There is some romance to extending the 'honor system' to the whole of Jakarta. Whe

Re: Avalon, Commons, once again (Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content)

Ted Husted wrote: > > As it stands, both are simply subprojects, and so a Commons committer is > a Commons committer. Ditto for Taglibs. It is also fair to point out that an Avalon committer is a committer to the framework itself as well as to testlet, logkit, phoenix, cornerstone, excalibur, and

Re: Avalon, Commons, once again (Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content)

Jeff Turner wrote: > Has that turned out to be a problem in practice? Say if you think so, > and we can propose a modification to the charter: "The votes of those > who haven't committed to a project are non-binding". That would be a matter to be discussed on the Commons (and/or Tablibs) lists.,

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Turbine and Avalon serve very distinct purposes, uses and users. They just have a load of components trying to do the same thing. Those could be shared and unified by placing them in the commons. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar > -Original Message- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED

Avalon, Commons, once again (Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content)

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:29:18PM +1100, Peter Donald wrote: ... > > 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

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Danny Angus wrote: > In my experience the best compromise is often to fragment the community, > have lots of small groups where concensus will get the job done, and hang > these together, but as this is pretty much what we have here already I find > myself asking the question; what role do the PMC

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:04, Jon Scott Stevens 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. Collabor

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 21:30, Sam Ruby wrote: > Paulo Gaspar wrote: > >> 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. > > Thanks. And I do have both. > > http://www.activestate.com/Corporate/People/T

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Jon wrote: > 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. I've been involved in other organisations that tried, from best intentions, to have a

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Paulo Gaspar wrote: > >> 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. Thanks. And I do have both. http://www.activestate.com/Corporate/People/Tech_Board.html#sam http://www.zend.com/zend/hof/sam.php

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:40, Sam Ruby wrote: > 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 t

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 20:55, Peter Donald wrote: > 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. err maybe it was Ted ;) -- Cheers,

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:36, Ceki Gülcü 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 arch

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 03:03, Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > In this email, all I hear you doing is pointing fingers. It has nothing to do with that. I keep hearing you and other people say jakarta is broken. However as far as I can tell it is just talk whenever someone steps on your toes. You don't re

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 --

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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.

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 > >> sourcef

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 th

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 wer

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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? > > >

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

> 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

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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. Jak

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

> 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 construct

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 th

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

> 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 proces

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

> -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

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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. Y

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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: >> >>

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 ope

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 menta

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 Packagin

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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

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 >

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 Co

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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,

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 si

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 revi

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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, th

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

> 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 [ma

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

> 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 cour

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 nee

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 t

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 -

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 i

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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 m

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:02, Ceki Gulcu wrote: > --- 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? > > It depends on whether and how you want to

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

--- 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? It depends on whether and how you want to contribute. There still is a lot of work to do. Ceki __

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

11:45 AM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content > > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:33, Ceki Gulcu wrote: > > Peter, > > > > So are you proposing to become a log4j committer? > > Would there b

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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? -- Cheers, Pete --- To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme exce

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Peter, So are you proposing to become a log4j committer? Regards, Ceki --- 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

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

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. T

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Sam, You are right "stop creating new projects" does not solve the "Validator" problem. However, stopping the creation of new projects might have long term effects. The effect might be increased collaboration or alternatively everyone leaving. It is a dangerous/stupid/daring (pick your choice)

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > Jon, > > I share precisely the same concerns. Thank you for standing up on this issue. > What do you suggest we do? I mean concretely. > > My first suggestion would be to stop creating new projects, starting *today*. > If someone wants to contribute code, they do that within

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Jon, I share precisely the same concerns. Thank you for standing up on this issue. What do you suggest we do? I mean concretely. My first suggestion would be to stop creating new projects, starting *today*. If someone wants to contribute code, they do that within the framework of an *existi

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

On Sunday, January 6, 2002, at 08:48 PM, Martin Cooper wrote: > If we had known of the existence of Intake before today, we might have > gone > down that path. However, as Intake is apparently currently buried in the > depths of Turbine, how would we have known? Certainly the Turbine folks > hav

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

You need a search engine for these "little things" maybe off the main page. With something catchy under it like "High your software has already been written for you...find it here". This would ecourage useful javadoc comments as well. So if I type "tree" I should see all the tree classes in the

RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Hi Jon, I think there is reason for the concern you are raising. I see a lot of other work repeated in other sub-projects too. Commons seems to be the only place where such smaller simple use components are visible. Most people just search there before and most think that Turbine and Avalon are

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

Jon Scott Stevens wrote: > >> Jon, I presume that you are talking about the subject, and not the text you >> are quoting. In any case, a framework independent validator seems to me to >> be valuable a reusable component. If one or both can't be restructed to be >> framework independent, then tha

Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content

on 1/6/02 1:45 PM, "Sam Ruby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon, I presume that you are talking about the subject, and not the text you > are quoting. In any case, a framework independent validator seems to me to > be valuable a reusable component. If one or both can't be restructed to be > fram