xml-commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <j...@socialchange.net.au>
Subject Re: xml-commons charter
Date Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:19:07 GMT
On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:30:42AM -0500, shane_curcuru@us.ibm.com wrote:
> (Apologies if this is a dup, mailer problems abound this week)
> ---- you Jeff Turner <jeff@socialchange.net.au> wrote ----
> [jt]>> What needs to change? Do you see something specific? This
> paragraph from xml-commons/README.html:
> >   New modules generally shouldn't go in until at least two separate
> >  other projects express interest in using the module. I think this is
> >  an important difference from jakarta-commons that makes sense in our
> >  world. I.e. I'd rather not just throw something in because it seems
> >  like it might be useful, I'd rather only put things in that we know
> >  will be shared among multiple projects.
> [jt]>This excludes all code developed by "third parties", outside the
> jakarta|xml.apache.org world. Does this matter? Well if you look at
> jakarta-commons, *most* of the code comes from
> outside Apache. Eg, someone developed a utility for a commercial
> project, and wants to give it a larger audience. Exactly my situation
> with DoctypeChanger.
> 
> [sc](Sorry, I'm on my icky machine without good linewrapping)
> OK, the above para in the charter doesn't restrict any code developed
> by third parties at all!  Other than ASF restrictions, any code is
> welcome.  I.e. since everything checked into xml.apache.org has to be
> under the Apache license, we can't checkin any commercial software.

My choice of wording was bad.. of course "third party" stuff is allowed
(eg SAX is developed as sax.sf.net). But only stuff *already in use* at
xml.apache.org is allowed in. No immigrants allowed.

> [jt]> So I think the "until at least two separate other projects
> express interest in using the module" clause will rather limit this
> project's growth. But then, is this a bad thing? There's no reason
> XML-specific utility code can't live in jakarta-commons.
> 
> [sc] Yes, the 'until at least two ... other projects' was meant to
> limit growth.  I think it's a valueable experiment to try to form a
> slightly different community than jakarta-commons.

Well let's learn from jakarta-commons :) Look at their projects; only a
relatively few (the Craig-managed ones, and httpclient) are from Jakarta
codebases. The rest are "immigrants"; imported by individuals, not
reused originally but *potentially* reusable. If jakarta-commons had
excluded these in it's charter (could have easily happened), it wouldn't
be half as interesting as it is today.

As for xml-commons being an experiment, it's been going for ~6 months,
and..  

> (I was impressed you all actually subscribed! I thought it was still
> edwin and sam and me!)

I think that illustrates that while xml-commons may be meeting it's
goals, they're not very ambitious ;)

> Part of this is because both the tools and (more importantly) the
> communities of xml and jakarta are quite different.  Part is I'd like
> to use xml-commons to try to work more seriously at getting better
> cross-xml-project coordination.

As does jakarta-commons with cross-jakarta-project coordination. That
does not prevent the project from *also* allowing more experimental
stuff in.

--Jeff

> - Shane
> 
> =====
> <eof aka="mailto:shane_curcuru@lotus.com"
>  BartSays="Nobody reads these anymore."/>

Mime
View raw message