commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <si...@ecnetwork.co.nz>
Subject Initiating commons projects (was [Betwixt] Mapping Beans to Beans)
Date Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:40:04 GMT
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 11:19, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2004, at 04:11, Brian Pugh wrote:
> 
> > I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I just came across it and I 
> > find myself needing exactly this kind of a framework for mapping beans 
> > to beans.  I am very "enthused by this idea" and would be willing to 
> > actively participate on a project to create such a framework.  Robert, 
> > are you implying that this is something you might see being done as an 
> > apache project?
> 
> dunno.
> 
> it depends.
> 
> this kind of thing would definitely fit well within the commons. 
> however, successful commons components do require a critical mass of 
> ASF committer energy. sometimes, it can be easier to build a community 
> elsewhere where the rules are different. i don't really have the spare 
> energy to push this through the sandbox by myself.
> 
> > Would others be interested in such a project if an attempt was made to 
> > create one?
> 
> that's the big question :)

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that it is a good
idea for commons to encourage the creation of new projects just because
"it's a cool idea".

Commons has traditionally been a place where creation of code has been
driven by the specific needs of one or more projects. For example
Digester grew out of tomcat, BeanUtils grew out of (or at least was
strongly driven by) struts, lang and collections have been driven by a
whole number of different projects etc.

Having a real and immediate user of new code ensures that the project is
grounded in reality; people complain if the design gets too abstract or
develops other flaws, because they need to *use* it. It also ensures
that there are people who have a desire to maintain that code in the
future.

I'm not trying to discourage the idea of coding for fun, or the idea of
following up an interesting concept to see where it might go and what it
might be useful for. However I would discourage doing this as an
apache-commons project; Sourceforge or similar seems a much better venue
for that sort of thing. An abandoned project on Sourceforge is no big
deal; an abandoned project in commons doesn't look so good.

The commons sandbox isn't really a good place for general "software
research", because the barriers to entry for interested people are too
high. When the people involved are already part of the commons community
this is less of an issue, but I think even stuff like Craig's "chains"
module might fare better initially as a sourceforge project.

IMHO, the sandbox is much more suited to experimenting with new
implementations of existing commons concepts, or with holding code that
is in the process of being moved from some existing non-commons project
into a standalone library hosted by commons.

In the specific case of a "Beans to Beans" project, I would be in favour
of hosting it at sourceforge initially. Maybe "commons-dev" could then
be subscribed to the sourceforge project dev list, so that commons
developers are kept aware of the project?

Regards,

Simon


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


Mime
View raw message