commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: [OT] Newcomers
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:53:23 GMT
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> -1000000
> There is no difference between libraries that jakarta can share, and
> libraries that everyone can share. Jakarta already has 2 common library

There are dozens of libraries that jakarta could share ( in avalon,
turbine, slide, struts, etc ). Aparently many projects didn't trust
them - and prefered to duplicate the code. In many cases this proved
to be the right choice. 

> 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 

I sugest you try to become a commiter on avalon excalibur and contribute
your code there. AFAIK creating this kind of 'perfect' design fits
very well in the avalon scope.

>(b) won't be allowed by the PMC. 

If such a project would help commons regain it's focus - I won't opose it.
And I think neither Geir. I won't use or contribute to such project.

I think that a change in the charter of commons may also require
some PMC vote, and a majority vote on commons first. You can
make a proposal if you want. 

> 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.

There is no 'dumping of code' AFAIK. Most of the code that is in commons,
including BeanUtils is _used_ ( and maintained and tested ) by
several jakarta projects. If you want to make it 'prefect' - I sugest
you do it in a different place. 


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

View raw message