ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: PMC official business
Date Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:22:26 GMT
At 10:58  31/1/01 -0600, Randall J. Parr wrote:
>I would argue that ORO, RegExpr, even Log4J are just as much out of scope as
>Ant.
>
>I would prefer to see development tools and packages such as these migrate
to a
>common Apache "dev", "tools", "base", whaterver project.
>
>I would like to see that project expanded to include packages to handle
some of
>the common problems such as configuration/property handling that I see being
>solved over and over again in the different Apache projects.

Hey ! Come join us then ! ;)

Over at Avalon (@java.apache.org/framework) this was one of the original
aims of the project. However it kinda lost focus and grew beyond that. We
are in the process of refocusinf it and splitting up the different
components so that the stable part could be reused in other projects.

At one stage I believe JDD was suggesting starting a project AUT (Apache
Utility Toolkit or something) that housed all the API level reusable code.
ie MD* manglers, CascadingThrowables, StringUtils, CLI parsing etc. I keep
poking fellow Avalon members with this so hopefully someone will initiate
it. Then we could move stuff from turbine/avalon/other into it.

Avalon is meant to be the repository of "framework" level reusable. Whats
the difference between framework and API levels - mainly framework enforces
a certain structure on user while API level doesn't. The new Avalon once it
gets to jakarta will be reduced to do just that task. When it is suitable
stable and offers significant advantage I do plan to advocate it to other
projects but that is the future ;)

>Further, I would like to see a preference (not a rule) for Apache projects to
>use these common development tools. As someone stated in another message,
when
>Apache includes log4j that says to me (maybe incorrectly) Apache thinks
this is
>the package to use (at least one of the best to use).  It is very
frustrating to
>see Apache projects, even subprojects in the same project all using a
different
>methods to handle configruation and logging. It really raises the learning
curve
>for using the software and raises the learning curve for contributing even
>higher.

It would be nice but it is not always possible ;) People work on what they
feel like. You can not force them to adopt something someone else did -
especially when they spent ages building it. Some of the projects overlap
but have significant differences/points of difference. ie Why do we have
two regex libraries here? Some are legacy issues (ie I built a log4j-like
logging system before it was Apache sanctioned). Some are just competition
or different thinking (Cocoon2 actions vs Turbine actions).

However I do think that a consistent build process and directory structure
would be of great use. That was the biggest complaint I received when
pushing Apache stuff.

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message