My understanding was that Howard's project was on javaforge for no reason if not that he _couldn't_ because of licenses host it on apache.
I think he probably has a good point. Whatever project was setup would need to be freidnly to extremely useful components/extensions like what Howard has built. I'm sure there are plenty of other components out there that could be federated but for this (disturbinly substantial) issue. And, honestly, I would think any attempt at standardizing a component foundry would be doomed if two contributors to the same effort couldn't agree on it's charter/course! How could anyone else be expected to commit as much? Imagine tacos, tdeli, Howard's extensions, and the myriad of extensions offered by other repositories like tapfx and tassel all under one system. Heck, at this point, I would settle for a unified maven repository with all of these things, to say nothing of a universal metadata model as you might need for things like Spindle.... Just my $.02. Sincerely, Joshua On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 12:44 -0500, Jesse Kuhnert wrote: > I think that as much fun as everything is, Howard and I would probably both > prefer to play in our own virtual sandboxes for things like this. > > On 2/20/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > What about the Tapestry project at JavaForge that Howard set up? Is this > > not what you have in mind? That's where Tapestry-Flash, Tapestry-Prop, > > and > > Tapestry-Spring live. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jesse Kuhnert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 12:26 PM > > To: Tapestry users > > Subject: tapestry component sub-project > > > > It has been voiced on a few occassions that an official tapestry > > sub-project > > based around components and contributors to those components may be > > beneficial. > > > > I think it would be nice to have a project like this, it would allow > > tapestry to have a clearer/safer feeling repository of components that are > > community maintained, while also providing all of the valuable resources > > that being a part of apache provides. It makes sense to have a sub-project > > as well, because it would allow (in theory?) people to be voted in to the > > sub-project as committers without going through as much red tape as might > > be > > required to be on tapestr itself. > > > > Is there a formal definition of how to propose something like this? Would > > it > > more or less look similar to incubator proposals? > > > > I'm thinking initially that I'd like to try and more or less move some of > > the tacos stuff into this repository. Whatever developers feel like coming > > along with me would be voted into this sub-project and we could start > > building out an infrastructure. I think this would also involve trying to > > reach out to some of the other component respositories and seeing if we > > can't find a solution that fits all needs. > > > > thoughts? > > > > jesse > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
