commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <>
Subject Re: New tool - armi - 'alternate to RMI'
Date Fri, 28 Dec 2001 16:16:41 GMT
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Lavandowska wrote:

> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 08:05:50 -0800 (PST)
> From: Lavandowska <>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <>,
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <>
> Subject: Re: New tool - armi - 'alternate to RMI'
> --- Paul Hammant <> wrote:
> > I'm still unclear whether I am getting a mandate in Commons or
> > whether I
> > should go back to Avalon with this.  It is decidedly client/server -
> > our
> > original raison d'ĂȘtre.
> Please keep it at Commons, this may be just the component we need to
> get around a nasty bodge we've made.
> That, and, I don't know that you need any mandate to put something into
> Commons-sandbox.  Once its proven itself ARMI should easily move into
> Commons proper.

According to the Commons charter, it doesn't take a vote to put proposed
code in the sandbox -- any committer on any Jakarta project can do this.
It's a good way to look at some potential code and play with it a little.
Once the package has been proven to be a good idea, it can be voted in to
the standard commons repository (by the committers on COMMONS-DEV).

In practice, it seems to work pretty well ... people get a chance to
evaluate new ideas (and get interested in contributing) in the sandbox, so
a proposed new package can start building a mini-community around it
instead of being a one-man show.  Historically, migration to the commons
repository has been approved every time it's been proposed so far, so it's
not like this is really a roadblock.

> Lance


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message