commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Cooper" <>
Subject Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content
Date Mon, 07 Jan 2002 01:48:28 GMT
> > Maybe the way to go is just to move such components to the Commons.
> > Why not moving Intake now?
> That is my question. Why doesn't David work towards integrating Intake
> Struts instead of working on pulling what is duplicated from Struts out
> Commons? The answer is is David's itch to scratch and it is
> simplest thing for him to do. That is the current failure of Jakarta in my
> eyes. Jakarta has become no better than Sourceforge. It is a place where
> can dump your least common denominator.

You seem to be implying that David's validator is a "least common
denominator" solution. Have you looked at it? Is there significantly more
functionality in Intake than in David's validator? If so, then perhaps that
functionality could be added to the Commons validator. If not, then it seems
to me, by your own argument, that Turbine would do well to buy into the
Commons validator and replace Intake.

> Instead of Struts working to use Turbine code and then move it into
> Struts came up with their own validation framework, made it stable in
> land and is now dumping it into Commons. There is a complete lack of
> communication there.

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
haven't mentioned it up until today in any of the validator discussions on
this list, and surely you can't be the only Turbine developer on this list.

Martin Cooper

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

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

View raw message