commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Morgan Delagrange <mdela...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make Jelly a required dependency?
Date Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:44:57 GMT
Also wrt. moving to a top level project, there are the
pragmatic concerns of repackaging the code, especially
who knows how many Jelly tag implementations external
to the component.  Jelly may be a victim of its own
success.  ;)

--- Ceki Gülcü <ceki@qos.ch> wrote:
> 
> James,
> 
> My suggestion would be to be patient and let Jelly
> mature a little
> more, especially with regards to documentation. When
> you feel that you
> are ready, then you can choose to go with commons or
> directly
> jakarta. Being in a sandbox has advantages because
> your project can
> grow slowly without user pressure. It's kind of like
> adolescence, when you
> are in it you can't wait to get out, but once out
> you cannot go back.
> 
> At 11:38 15.10.2002 +0100, James Strachan wrote:
> >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?
> >
> >James
> >-------
> >http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
> 
> --
> Ceki
> 
> TCP implementations will follow a general principle
> of robustness: be
> conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you
> accept from
> others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:  
> <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 


=====
Morgan Delagrange
http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
http://axion.tigris.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

--
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