commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <>
Subject Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make Jelly a required dependency?
Date Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:38:19 GMT
From: "Costin Manolache" <>
> James Strachan wrote:
> > Though I am having second thoughts on whether Commons is the right place
> > for Jelly; maybe it should be a top level Jakarta project? Jelly started
> > out as a little reusable XML scripting engine that could be embedded
> > anywhere and is increasingly growing in scope to have all kinds of
> > libraries like JellyUnit, JellySwing and to do things like SOAP
> > (via Apache Axis).
> If jelly commiters want it to be a top level jakarta project, I'm
> sure it can happen.
> I would presonally prefer to see it as a commons project. It can have
> its own list ( like httpclient ), but I think it would benefit from
> the low-entry barier, and given the ammount of plugins it has
> it would be much easier for people to contribute to it.
> It would also be much easier for other project to rely on jelly.
> That doesn't mean I'm against it as top-level, just that I think it
> would be _much_ better for jelly to be a common component.

I agree with both your and Craig's opinions on the matter. I'm finding it
hard to decide either way. I think on balance I'd kinda rather keep around
the Commons too I think; though I was a bit unsure if Jelly was becoming a
bit too 'framework'-ish for commons. The core of Jelly should be small and
embeddable and so fits the idea of a commons component. Though it was the
various plugin libraries which are kinda like sub-projects that made me
think Jelly maybe should maybe be a top level project with a common-core and
many independent sub-projects. Hopefully the Jelly build process will get
sorted out soon so that it will become much more modular so its easier for
folks to just embed what they need.

So should Jelly stay in commons or be a top level project? I don't really
feel strong enough either way really, so I'm tempted to err on the side of
caution and recommend it stays in commons but maybe, like httpclient, have a
seperate mail lists to avoid folks not interested in Jelly getting bombarded
with mail.

I'll call a vote to promote Jelly to commons proper shortly. If we decide
later on that Jelly should move out of commons to a top level project we can
cross that bridge when we come to it. How's that sound?


Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

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

View raw message