commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From __matthewHawthorne <ma...@phreaker.net>
Subject Re: Commons - TLP
Date Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:21:17 GMT
I'm fairly new to the Apache scene, but I think I like the idea.  I 
think that Jakarta Commons is buried down deeper than it should be. 
Some of the projects such as [digester] and [jxpath] are so gosh darn 
useful that they deserve to be in a more visible space.

However, I'm not sure that I understand your suggestion about Jakarta 
Commons becoming top level, and then being joined by Apache Commons.  I 
think it should be the other way around -- Jakarta Commons projects 
should become Apache Commons projects.

But in a sense, it can all seem redundant.  If Apache Commons then has 
projects for all languages, there would need to be at least a small 
separation of projects by language, if only for web site listing, or 
coding standards, etc.  So, there would be a Java branch of Apache 
Commons -- which is kind of what Jakarta was in the first place, 
Apache's Java project, right?

So, my point is, I agree that Jakarta Commons might benefit in being 
higher up.  I'm surprised that Struts isn't a top level project already, 
but if it were to be, then that would be another top level project that 
depends on JC -- which doesn't quite fit with the charter.

Although, as I just mentioned, the language issues still confuse me.




Henri Yandell wrote:
> [partially fantasy land/future ideas]
> 
> The Jakarta Commons charter basically views Commons as a supplier of
> Jakarta projects, and not Apache projects in general.
> 
> With many of the Jakarta sub-projects moving to TLP status [ie)
> ant.apache.org etc], this is increasingly untrue. Jelly's main customer
> is Maven for example, quite a few XxxxUtils classes in Commons came from
> Ant, and a lot of code came from a partial merger with Avalon's Excalibur.
> 
> There are two easy solutions [to think of]. The first is to change the
> charter to match reality, ie) any ASF TLP is considered a client of
> Jakarta Commons. The other is for Jakarta Commons to become a TLP.
> 
> I'd like to speak for the latter suggestion, I'd also then like to suggest
> a more radical [flame-likely], though obvious next step.
> 
> Pluses I see for becoming a TLP:
> 
> * Currently we're viewed as a bit of an odd project in that we're an
> umbrella project child of an umbrella project.  Removing one of these
> layers will improve the view that we have strong awareness of what's going
> on and we would report directly to the board.
> 
> * It helps get us into the ASF community. We're a bit hidden away from new
> TLP Java projects, such as the currently incubating Directory project, and
> a TLP placement would lead to more involvement and a larger community
> spread as new Java projects arrive there.
> 
> * There's community interest in a TLP Commons, and as a community we have
> a large amount of knowledge we can bring to the table.
> 
> The last point suggests an obvious next step, which is some kind of
> merging with the Apache Commons project. I would like to suggest that the
> way we do this is that, J-C goes to TLP, with all its current rules and
> community, A-C projects join J-C [currently just Serf, though a
> *libtool project that's something to do with compiling C is likely to join
> A-C too], J-C removes its Java-centric view and allows any language to
> join.
> 
> The things I believe we should push for is that our current J-C group
> should not try to de-java ourselves, but that we allow the A/J-C community
> to choose its own delineations over time and not try and set them up to
> begin with. Our mail lists would stay the same and they would join, and
> over time we would decide, much like httpclient in the past, whether we
> need new mail lists.
> 
> The PMC for such a thing would be based on all active committers, so no
> real change than the current way in which the J-C bazaar is handled.
> 
> I think the ASF infrastructure group are going to want ASF projects to be
> using subversion rather than cvs at some point in the future, and the
> current A-C community has good subversion understanding with which to help
> us if that should come to pass.
> 
> There are also obvious ties when similar domain products, serf/httpclient,
> are able to communicate more openly and easily.
> 
> ---
> 
> Does anyone have any negatives/positives of such a thing? Does it make any
> sense for the future? Does it harm/help J-C?
> 
> Or am I just suggesting evil thoughts?
> 
> Hen


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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