commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Scott Stevens <>
Subject Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content
Date Sun, 06 Jan 2002 23:57:19 GMT
on 1/6/02 3:16 PM, "Ted Husted" <> wrote:

> Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
>> I don't see why the basis isn't Intake. Why not work to move Intake to
>> commons and then work towards a framework independent implementation in
>> Commons?
> Thanks for volunteering.

No. I see it as David volunteering and the Jakarta project as management.
However, we don't have any management...hence why I think that things are
messed up.

>> Of course it is easier to start from scratch to invent yet another
>> validation framework. This is where I see another failure of Jakarta. People
>> only go with the easiest route without any concern about the long term mess
>> they are making.
> David's framework is over a year old. It's not a new product, but an
> already useful one that we are adopting. There is also interest in this
> package in the Velocity group.

Intake is even older than that.

I don't see why Velocity would be interested in it. Maybe Turbine, but
Turbine already has Intake...

> Torque is a perfect example. Personally, I can't make heads or tails out
> of it. And its not for lack of trying. I'm just not as smart as you.
> It's not reasonable to expect every developer is going to another Jon
> Stevens. 

I haven't seen you ask any specific questions on the turbine-dev list. All I
got from you was a response saying that Scarab had 180 classes. Sorry, I
don't really consider that trying.

> Jon, as much as I love you, everything you touch doesn't turn to gold.
> Just because Torque exists doesn't mean that it's a one-size-fits all
> panacea. 

I never said that Torque was perfect...but it is a start...and definitely an
excuse not to re-invent something.

> Last I knew the check and balance was -1

Ok, I -1 the inclusion of his code as the validation framework for the
Commons project in favor of using Intake as the basis.

> We have done a very poor job of expressing to people what the rules are.
> It is totally unreasonable to expect hundreds of people to get the
> message 72 hours after we've started posting reminders.

Nope. The rules have been clearly expressed on the website for *years* now.
It is clear that the rules state to use the Sun Coding Conventions unless
otherwise 'defined'. What isn't clear about that is beyond my understanding.

> I disagree. We are working together. We are trying to turn our
> monolithic codebases into components that other products can use. And we
> are succeeding. 

I don't see that at all.

> The validator underyling this post is a perfect example. Instead of
> burying it in the Struts distribution, the Struts Committers made a
> deliberate decision to bring it to the Commons, with David taking the
> lead. If something like Intake (whatever that is) was available in the
> Commons 18 months ago, then we all might have used that instead.

Intake has been available in Turbine for longer than that. I don't see why
that couldn't be used as the basis.

> We are making progress, but it is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect
> everything to happen instantaneously. We all do what we can as soon as
> we can. 

How about at least not allowing new things to continue down a messed up
road? That is my real problem with things.


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

View raw message