commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james_strac...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject Re: [Jelly] [Proposal] list of core taglibs
Date Tue, 07 Jan 2003 05:05:18 GMT
From: "Morgan Delagrange" <mdelagra@yahoo.com>
> --- dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> > My 2c...
> >
> > Morgan Delagrange <mdelagra@yahoo.com> wrote on
> > 07/01/2003 08:28:08 AM:
> >
> > > Here are the tags I'm pretty sure we don't need in
> > the
> > > core distro: ant, antlr, betwixt, bsf, email,
> > html,
> > > http, interaction, jeez, jetty, jms, jsl, ojb,
> > quartz,
> > > soap, sql, swing, threads, validate and xmlunit.
> > >
> > > Here are the tags I'm pretty sure we do need at
> > the
> > > core of jelly: core, define.
> > >
> > > And here are the tags I'm not sure about...
> > >
> > > bean, beanshell, and dynabean: I think they're
> > out.
> > > They all seem specific to a single domain (ant,
> > > beanshell, beanuitls).
> >
> > Personally, I think bean and dynabean should be in
> > core.

Tricky one this. Maybe we should use the rule, if in doubt, its out? A Jelly
user doesn't have to use bean or dynabean libraries so I guess they should
be optional.


> Let's get some more input on this one.  On the one
> hand they seem to have some functional similarities
> with "define", which is definitely in scope.  On the
> other, they seem like they might be specific to ant
> and beanutils, respectively.
>
> > > junit: Tough one, since many of our unit tests
> > utilize
> > > these tags.  Thoughts?
> >
> > Core for me.
>
> I'd rather have them separate, but I'm not sure how to
> approach the logistical concerns with testing the core
> tags.

I guess if Ant is optional then so should JUnit - however it'll make our
lives much easier with the build process if we leave it core for now?


> > > log: out?
> > Yep, out.

Again I find log very useful for testing. Though if we can have inter-tag
library dependencies in the build process we could make it optional.


> > > util: out?
> > Yep, out.
> >
> > > xml: even though Jelly is XML-based in syntax, I
> > don't
> > > see that these tags are really bound to the inner
> > > workings of Jelly.  So I'm inclined to say out.
> > Personally, even though these tags aren't part of
> > the core, xml processing
> > is so common for jelly, I'd prefer them in core.
>
> Really?  I've written several independent
> implementations of Jelly libraries, and none of them
> use the XML tags.  Is it really a part of core Jelly
> operations, or is it just that people who use Jelly
> happen to be interested in XML?

Agreed. I guess it should be optional too.

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:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message