commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <>
Subject Re: Problems...
Date Sun, 05 Mar 2006 08:38:13 GMT
On 3/4/06, Stephen Colebourne <> wrote:
> Yes we have many, many problems.
> Site
> Is this really our top priority? Is maven 2 helping here? Is maven 1? I

Apart from thinking that our failure to work on an out of the box
system is weak; my complaints are all on the site design. Will write
stuff up on that - I've a long way to go before anyone is convinced by
the sounds of it :)

> Inactivity
> Dormant has helped clarify the position. But are we willing to kick
> [beanutils] and [dbcp] into dormant? Since all user requests and bugs
> seem to have been ignored for many months, surely they are dormant? I
> await the screams from the wider community...

Inactivity is the number one issue, in the same way that breathing is
the number one issue for any organism. We need to get the blood
flowing; (nealry?) all of the other things mentioned are either to
this end or to the same end for Jakarta.

> Commons as the solution
> We're not. We're barely holding our head above water.

I'm definitely being chicken little and running around complaining
about the sky falling; but my answer would be to look down at the
drowned corpses below you :)

Your answer does raise a very good point. My thinking has been that
the various small components in Jakarta should fold into Commons -
they're lost as subprojects. The larger subprojects would be split up,
ie) velocity-core and velocity-dvsl would both be directly under
Commons/Jakarta. However - this is under the huge assumption that this
won't harm Commons.

Option number 2 would be for Commons to goto TLP - and Jakarta could
bury the corpses that don't twitch enough to keep their heads above

> Leadership
> Something Apache counsels against. Often however, the most successful
> projects have a leader who drives the project forward and on occaisions
> takes decisions. In commons we do have this, but only at the component
> level. We feel unwilling, or are unable, or don't want, a cross commons
> leader a lot of the time.

There's a difference between a leader and Commons leading the way for
Jakarta. Commons is talking about the issues that Jakarta is facing
and not talking about. The answers Commons come up with will almost
definitely be the answers Jakarta adopts. It's also proof for me on
the Jakarta problem - it shoud be that "issues in Commons are not a
Commons problem, they are a Jakarta problem - there is no Commons".

Unless you mean me bringing this stuff up and throwing out insane
ideas :) That's your own faults - you turned me into this hideously
deformed middle-tier cat-herder and now I can't help it.

> My analysis is that its time for a bit more radical surgery. And I mean
> splitting commons into smaller communities. Jakarta Xxx Components sets
> the naming pattern. If we do this, then each new group will be small
> enough to be able to take decisions by itself, for example on the site.

Agreed with Brett on my reply to him about this being Jakartazization.
We can't go this way without radically new ideas on how to organize an


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

View raw message