commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <>
Subject Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make Jelly a required dependency?
Date Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:53:11 GMT

Being in the process of writing an XML processing library called
joran, I am thoroughly impressed by Jelly's capabilities. Even if its
documentation is imho somewhat lacking, Jelly looks like one of the
most promising projects currently under the Jakarta umbrella.

At 14:33 14.10.2002 +0100, James Strachan wrote:
>From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <>
> > 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?
> > It's more active than Latka itself ATM, and used by more and more
> > Jakarta projects.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Let's see the plan :-)
>I'd really like a stable release of Jelly out ASAP so migrating it to the
>commons proper sounds like a great idea.
>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 add-on libraries like
>JellyUnit, JellySwing and to do things like SOAP scripting (via Apache
>So I'm starting to think it needs to be a top level project with its own
>sub-projects. Do others think this is a good idea? Either way I'd like to
>see Jelly promoted very soon.
>Incidentally Jelly also has dependencies on Jexl which would need to be
>promoted to the commons proper too before a release could be made.


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

View raw message