commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Graham <>
Subject Re: [codec] [proposal] Moving To Apache Commons
Date Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:15:10 GMT
I agree with everything Martin said.  I often read codec messages and if
it wasn't hosted in Jakarta commons I wouldn't have worked on the
DigestUtils code.  Granted, that code is a very small piece of codec but I
think it says a lot about the community that people unrelated to a
particular project are willing to volunteer their time on small pieces.


--- Martin Cooper <> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, Tim O'Brien wrote:
> > Enough people profess interest in using this product, but only a few
> > committers (myself and Gary) actually go about the business of
> > contributing.  Believe it or not, I think that components get lost in
> > the signal to noise ratio of the Jakarta Commons development mailing
> list.
> To a certain extent, I agree with you. However, I think things would get
> worse rather than better if Codec moves off to A-C and has its own
> lists,
> etc.
> Here at J-C, Codec (and all of the other active components) gets a good
> deal of exposure. The discussions are out there in front of a
> substantial
> audience of Java developers. Most may not contribute, but you have no
> way
> of telling how many people *read* the posts. That is really very
> valuable,
> even though it might not seem so at first blush.
> If, at some point, I decide I need a Codec like component, I know
> exactly
> where I'll turn to get one. I know, from following the posts, that I'll
> get a component I can rely on. I'll also have a certain degree of trust
> in
> it from knowing the people who have worked on it.
> If Codec moves off on its own, and I no longer see the discussions, the
> commits, or the bug reports, then I won't have that same trust in it.
> I'm
> not so interested in a Codec component right now that I would subscribe
> to
> yet another mailing list just to see those discussions.
> Now when I *do* need a Codec component, it's certainly likely that I
> would
> look at A-C if there's no longer one at J-C. But if the committers to it
> are now disjoint from those remaining at J-C, my trust level is lower.
> Now
> it's not much different to me than an SF equivalent, except that it's at
> Apache (which is not to be sniffed at, of course).
> Anyway, all of the above is a rather long-winded way of saying that I
> don't think Codec moving out of J-C and into A-C is a good idea. As some
> others have said before me, I think J-C has a great deal of value in
> just
> staying together, wherever that might take us.
> --
> Martin Cooper
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message