db-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John McNally <jmcna...@collab.net>
Subject Re: [RFC] Draft DB Commons Proposal
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:56:49 GMT
Can there be any objective criteria to determine whether a project is
more appropriate as a subproject of db instead of a subproject of
db-commons? If jakarta-commons-dbcp proposes itself as a db-commons
component and is approved.  Then later poolman proposes itself as a
subproject of db, would it be appropriate to -1 based on the fact that
db-commons has declared connection pools as appropriate to its scope and
so poolman should submit itself as a component in db-commons?

My experience with jakarta-commons is mostly positive, but the lack of
scope has troubled me.  The size of the codebase would seem to be an
indicator of the amount of developer resources it will consume and the
amount of mailing list traffic it will generate (at least dev, maybe not
user).  I think some jakarta-commons components should be full
subprojects of jakarta.

Could we have the sandbox concept as a separate entity from db-commons? 
Once a project that started in the sandbox is ready for release, it
could either propose itself to either the db pmc or directly to the
commons committers.  It would make the decision on where to end up more
a function of the state of the code/community when a release is
upcoming.  The default path in jakarta is from sandbox to commons proper
and since that is the easiest path, I think it is often chosen for

john mcnally

On Mon, 2003-02-17 at 12:43, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
> I think some of the recent discussion on the jakarta-commons list about
> which specific commons components to move to a db-commons subprojects is
> getting a little bit ahead of ourselves.
> As previously discussed here, I've adapated the Jakarta Commons
> charter/proposal in order to create a DB Commons charter/proposal.  You
> can find the HTML rendering at
>  <http://apache.org/~rwaldhoff/db-commons/charter.html>.
> The difference between this and the original is largely (a) I removed the
> Java specific language and guidelines, (b) I removed the jakarta-commons
> guidelines that have been entirely or largely ignored, (c) I collapsed
> portions of the FAQ and Resources section of the jakarta-commons document
> directly into the Guidelines section.
> I don't think there are any real suprises in that document, but please
> take a careful look.
> I'd like to address the comments, suggestions or objections anyone here
> may have, and then propose this to the PMC.
> Thanks,
>  - Rod

View raw message