Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 5350 invoked from network); 14 Oct 2002 13:53:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Oct 2002 13:53:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 6757 invoked by uid 97); 14 Oct 2002 13:53:56 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 6741 invoked by uid 97); 14 Oct 2002 13:53:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 6729 invoked by uid 98); 14 Oct 2002 13:53:55 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021014154214.027b2d78@mail.qos.ch> X-Sender: ceki@mail.qos.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:53:11 +0200 To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" From: Ceki =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=FClc=FC?= Subject: Re: [Latka][Proposal] Make Jelly a required dependency? In-Reply-To: <018601c27386$4b07a7c0$3565a8c0@spiritsoft.com> References: <3DAA7BD2.8080409@apache.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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" > > 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? > > 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 >Axis). > >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. > >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: For additional commands, e-mail: