commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [OT] Newcomers
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:44:27 GMT
From: "Ola Berg" <ola.berg@arkitema.se>
> scoulebourne writes:
> >That the charter should be
> >amended to emphasise commons right to exist as a top level jakarta
component
> >in its own right. Give commons the mandate to do what it is perfectly
placed
> >to do, build high quality low level libraries for the Java community, of
> >which jakarta is a part.
>
> No Stephen. Commons came into existence with a reason, before you and I
(and others) entered the scene. As things stand, you and I are sometimes
blocking (you) and disturbing (I) that goal. A project where the existing
jakarta projects can do compromises in order to share a common code base is
justified and welcome.

'Blocking' is an interesting choice of words. I'm not the only one who
believes in a private constructor. My very first response on the
constructors topic offered deprectaed public as a compromise. I am more
adamently private now because of some of the abuse received.


> I just happen to think that building \"high quality low level libraries
for the Java community\" in an ASF style is justified too, and that I very
much would like to be a part of that process. Commons as it stands should do
its thing.
>
> Both goals are justified, but they cannot be achieved with the same code
base. Doesn\'t this call for a separate open source project for us \"common
utility makers\"? Wouldn\'t everybody become happy then?

-1000000
There is no difference between libraries that jakarta can share, and
libraries that everyone can share. Jakarta already has 2 common library
areas (the other is Avalon Excalibur) and they are gradually trying to move
code into commons. To create a third (a) is a bad idea, and (b) won't be
allowed by the PMC. After all, how do you decide what goes in which? The
reality is that you would duplicate all the code - not good.

The only difference is that jakarta projects have to be prepared to
relinquish some ownership to commons. The current approach of dumping code
in commons has led to some really badly structured projects (BeanUtils being
the most obvious - it has four different roles at present). Its the commons
dedicated developers who are sorting this out.

Stephen



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message