commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] (re-vote) XxxUtils constructors
Date Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:50:21 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On 8/21/02 7:09 PM, "" <> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>>Yes, that is the commons charter. But that does not mean that we should
>>>>cowtow to every demand that every other product or project in the world
>>>>makes of us. If we do that then every method will be public, every weird
>>>>and wacky piece of functionality added. You are interpreting the charter
>>>>for your needs.
>>>We are talking about jakarta projects - like velocity.
>>>And 'we' means velocity developers who may use this package too.
>>>Is there any jakarta project that is using this piece of code ? If not,
>>>maybe it's a good idea to stop this debate and move it back to sandbox.
>>>Or velocity can just create a fork that fits his needs - if the
>>>component doesn't work for them, they are more than entitled to do
>>>so, and I think we should use the more open version.
>> Wouldn't that be funny, forking code that came from Turbine/Velocity so
>> we can use it in Turbine/Velocity?
> I don't find it funny (I know you don't),
> it would be a *big* failure for Commons :-/


We spent a week and 100 mails to argue about a trivial thing 
that would clearly allow a jakarta project to use that code.
We hear all the 'code purity' arguments - and that for some
code that uses static methods and is not extensible in the 
first place. 

My only question is who uses the code right now. Because 
my vote will be -1 on any project I'm involved with to use
it - this lack of compromise and attitude is not a good


> Guess why the Avalon project has been reluctant to move stuff in
> Commons...

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

View raw message