commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paulo Gaspar" <>
Subject RE: Commons Validator Packaging/Content
Date Mon, 07 Jan 2002 01:23:33 GMT
Hi Jon,

I think there is reason for the concern you are raising. I see a lot
of other work repeated in other sub-projects too.

Commons seems to be the only place where such smaller simple use
components are visible. Most people just search there before and
most think that Turbine and Avalon are big blocks of indivisible

Maybe the way to go is just to move such components to the Commons.
Why not moving Intake now?

Maybe this issue needs regulation, but this kind of think tends to
work better if you use the carrot before applying the whip.

Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Scott Stevens []
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 11:15 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> on 1/6/02 1:45 PM, "Sam Ruby" <> wrote:
> > Jon, I presume that you are talking about the subject, and not
> the text you
> > are quoting.  In any case, a framework independent validator
> seems to me to
> > be valuable a reusable component.  If one or both can't be
> restructed to be
> > framework independent, then that would seem to be a reasonable
> explanation
> > for the duplication.  If both can, then merging of the best of
> both here in
> > commons would seem to be the wisest path.
> 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?
> 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.
> I feel like Jakarta is just going down this path of having a bazillion
> different implementations and versions of the same thing and it is only
> getting worse. Commons was supposed to help clean that up by providing a
> central location, however all I see is it making it worse because
> people are
> just re-inventing what already exists in other projects instead of using
> existing projects as the basis.
> A perfect example of this recently was the discussion about Torque. Hey,
> Torque exists, but it is *easier* to re-invent it rather than simply spend
> the time to figure it out, understand it and move it to commons (or a top
> level project).
> I'm starting to realize that Jakarta has grown to becoming a place where
> people only scratch their own itches and I agree that that is the
> basis for
> open source. However, we have no overall direction. We all have our own
> opinions and spend days and days discussing them and when it comes down to
> putting code into CVS, people do whatever they want anyway
> because there is
> no set of checks and balances to put some sort of higher level
> control over
> things.
> In Java Apache, these issues never came up because there were only a few
> projects and a few people expressing their opinions. Now, Jakarta
> has grown
> into literally hundreds of people expressing their opinions and doing what
> they want. Commons has become an area where people have a free CVS commit
> tree to put whatever they want into it, which is fine, however
> these people
> doing the commits haven't spent the time to do things as simple
> as figuring
> out what the proper way to format code according to the Jakarta rules.
> People keep saying that Jakarta isn't broken. Well, if it isn't
> broken, then
> how come we have so many people doing their own thing and not working
> together? Jakarta is supposed to be a group collective, however it is
> becoming nothing more than another Sourceforge.
> -jon
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message