commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Downey <steve.dow...@netfolio.com>
Subject Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make Jelly a required dependency?
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:51:27 GMT
On Monday 14 October 2002 04:49 am, dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 14/10/2002 06:09:54 PM:
> > dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> > > Is there a rule somewhere about not having sandbox components as a
> > > dependency? Or is this a general call to move Jelly to commons?
> >
> > It's really time Jelly goes to Commons proper, don't you think?
>
> Yes, I do. But I'm more interested in whether there is a rule somewhere
> about sandbox components as dependencies, since that sparked Costin's
> comments.

I don't think it's a 'rule'. Just common sense. Commons-sandbox code is 
unofficial, and could easily be abandoned, or repudiated, or the API changed 
wildly. Since arguing that a particular project wouldn't be is pretty much 
the same as saying it should be accepted into commons (or some other project, 
or a top level project, ...), I think Costin is saying that step ought to be 
done first.  It shows there really is the level of support there for other 
projects to depend on it.

It's about risk management. 

--
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