commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wannheden, Knut" <knut.wannhe...@paranor.ch>
Subject RE: [VOTE] moving Jelly to the commons proper
Date Fri, 06 Dec 2002 15:03:14 GMT
James,

> > I'm not a commiter, just asking:
> > Will the release contain all tag libraries?
> > I think that it would be better to release Jelly with some 
> tag libraries
> > but maybe not with all of them. And release some tag 
> libraries in the
> > independent way. This 'big' library may be hard to maintain 
> then 'core'
> > distribution and set of tag libraries. (Remember problems 
> with logging
> > Log4J support and NPEs?)
> 
> Agreed. I think a small core of Jelly with few dependencies, 
> then other
> libraries available seperately would be a great idea. Its a 
> common complaint
> that 'Jelly has lots of dependencies' when really the core is 
> pretty small
> and has few non-commons dependencies, its just that different 
> libraries have
> dependencies on other libraries.
> 

Sounds like a good idea.  But I agree with Tomasz that the question about
what tag libraries are developed/maintained by the Jelly project is
certainly important.

The Ant project, as I understand it, was in the beginning very happy to
incorporate tasks/types contributed by users of Ant.  The effect was a more
powerful Ant and consequently an increased user base.  As comitters noticed
that the additional tasks and types got in the way of making changes to the
core (because they needed maintenance and could get in the way of backward
compatibility issues), they got more reluctant to new contributions.  Now
contributors are generally asked to provide/maintain the tasks themselves.
So I guess there's no question about it: the tag libraries
supported/maintained by the Jelly team should be chosen carefully.

> We could still create a 'one big jar' if need be (like 
> commons-core, or
> ant-optional etc) or could leave each add-on library as a 
> seperate jar for
> those wishing a more fine grained control. What I'd really like is a
> Maven-plugin style model where new libraries and their 
> dependencies could be
> loaded on demand (if need be) from a small core in a JJAR / 
> Maven / forehead
> / classworlds kinda way.
> 

This would be great!  For the user it would probably also be easy to use
taglibs not maintained by Jelly.  All that's needed is an identifier and an
URL to fetch the Jar.

Just my two cents...

--
knut

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message