Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 81556 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2002 14:38:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2002 14:38:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 11122 invoked by uid 97); 6 Dec 2002 14:39:02 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 11070 invoked by uid 97); 6 Dec 2002 14:39:01 -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 11031 invoked by uid 98); 6 Dec 2002 14:39:00 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) Message-ID: <019a01c29d35$0260efd0$9865fea9@spiritsoft.com> From: "James Strachan" To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" References: <011201c29d31$b690daa0$9865fea9@spiritsoft.com> <3DF0B3EE.1000109@ais.pl> Subject: Re: [VOTE] moving Jelly to the commons proper Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 14:37:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N From: "Tomasz Pik" > James Strachan wrote: > > The Jelly code base has been stable for some time and it'd be good to get a > > stable release of Jelly out so other projects like Maven, Cactus and Latka > > can depend on a stable, supported release. So I'd like to propose that Jelly > > be moved to the commons proper where we can start work on getting things in > > place for an official release. > > 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. 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. One of the main aims of proposing Jelly to the commons proper is so that the community can decide the best release form of Jelly. I'd appreciate any feedback on these ideas James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: