commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [hivemind] Time to come out of the sandbox?
Date Thu, 16 Oct 2003 20:46:24 GMT
I would like to suggest a higher level than commons. IIRC the commons
charter advises against 'frameworks', which strikes me as covering
[hivemind]. There are a number of clues that support this:

1) number of dependencies - a commons component should have relatively few
dependencies. Hivemind has lots.

2) multiproject - a commons component should usually be one maven component.
If it builds multiple jars, one should ask how this fits. Controlling and
releasing those jars is perhaps a job for a more standalone project.

3) name - a commons component should have a 'boring' name that represents
exactly what it does. Hence lang, collections, reflect, primitives, io,
beanutils, convert etc.

4) mailing lists - a fickel way of judging something, but a lot of mails can
indicate a community in and of itself. Intriguingly it was proposed that
[jelly] should migrate out of commons at one point due to high mailing list
traffic. Afterwards the traffic dropped, and the community evaporated
despite being used in maven. It would have been an interesting experiment to
see what would have happened if it had migrated. Perhaps it would have
helped form the community.


Since [hivemind] fulfils a similar role (in some ways) to Avalon, maybe the
top level at apache is appropriate. I have a feeling that the ASF board may
have difficulties with that however. The jakarta level may be easier to get
into.

Note that there are other components in commons that probably shouldn't be
there for similar reasons. Jelly being notable. It is very difficult of
course to find the right balance between a 'common shared component' and a
'project in its own right'. For example, by location, jaxen is a project in
its own right, but jxpath is a common component.

I won't block a commons proper [hivemind], but I feel -0 describes my
feeling about it as a location for this code.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hlship@comcast.net>
> I've always expected HiveMind to be a commons sub-project; a peer of lang
and logging.
>
> I've actually been quite surprised at the level of interest in HiveMind;
must have struck a nerve.
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/hivemind/
> http://javatapestry.blogspot.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dion@multitask.com.au [mailto:dion@multitask.com.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:43 PM
> > To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Subject: [hivemind] Time to come out of the sandbox?
> >
> >
> > Isn't it time for hivemind to come out of the sandbox?
> >
> > Should hivemind be a commons component or a subproject of
> > jakarta like
> > tapestry is?
> > --
> > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> > Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>


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


Mime
View raw message