commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kurt Schrader <>
Subject Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content
Date Mon, 07 Jan 2002 06:46:52 GMT
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
> 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.

I'll bite.  :)

The first problem here is that no one mentioned the Intake framework 
most likely because it's already a fully functional validating 
framework.  It's not an excuse, just a fact.  My pages are already 
validating, so why would I get in on a discussion concerning how to 
write a validator? :)

It's the old limited bandwidth thing again.

With that out of the way, I have no problem with someone merging the two 
now that yours has been brought forward, but I think the question is of 
who (if anyone) the onus should be on to do so.  I'd like to think that 
if Commons functions the way its supposed to then your validator will 
eventually grow to be so much better than Intake that we'll have no 
choice but to move over based upon the advantages offered to us by 
it.  :)

Another problem here is that it's not entirely clear what most of the 
stuff under the Jakarta banner does.  Try this simple experiment: walk 
up to a developer that's not familiar with Jakarta and ask him/her what 
they think each of the following pieces of software does: Turbine, 
Fulcrum, Torque, Etc. (I'm picking on the projects that I work on, but 
clearly almost every project in Jakarta falls under this heading.)  If, 
on the other hand, projects were named with respect to their function, 
then much of this problem would be alleviated.

It's too late for functional naming now, of course, but perhaps each 
project that gets accepted from now on needs have to have an explicit 
declaration of what it does attached to its name.  (e.g. "POI - The 
Jakarta Office File Format Reader/Writer")

This problem is even worse in the Commons and in the Commons-Sandbox.  I 
think that it may be a good idea to require a declaration of purpose in 
a standard file in the top level directory of the project for things 
that are placed in the Commons-Sandbox from here forward.  Hopefully 
these can all be pasted together in some way using Anakia/XSL/Your 
Favorite Tool so that there is an easy way to figure out what everything 
there is supposed to do, much like the new front page for Jakarta.  We 
keep saying that we don't want commons to become SourceForge 2, but 
currently there is nothing to prevent someone from dumping any old code 
there in hopes of it finding a home.  Digging through the mess that it 
is quickly becoming is only going to get harder in the future unless we 
establish some standards for it now.

Finally, I hope that we never grow so large that we forget that the core 
of Jakarta, as I see it, is the people involved.  This clearly wouldn't 
be as much fun if everyone didn't either love/hate Jon, the Tomcat teams 
didn't flame each back and forth occasionally, and everyone didn't have 
Sam's Gump reminders being flung at us.  ;)  This is clearly as much 
about working and forming a community with some of the smartest people 
around as it is about writing great software.


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

View raw message