xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Duncan Davidson <james.david...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: [spinnaker] Announce
Date Sun, 09 Jul 2000 21:32:40 GMT
on 7/9/00 4:55 AM, Arved Sandstrom at Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca wrote:

> I don't personally see _any_ UML on open source projects. :-) I wouldn't
> mind seeing some judicious use of the most expressive diagrams, and I plan
> to start sneaking them into FOP, which has some fairly intricate stuff
> happening, and could benefit from them.

That's the best way to do it. Just use em. I think that they are great to
talk about overal direction and code modularity. Sometimes I get worried
when people UML hashtables and other fine grained things, but... that's just
a personal thing. :)

> I'm keeping an eye on ArgoUML, though (which is under the auspices of the
> Tigris project), and recommend it to anyone who wishes to get a start with
> UML. There isn't support for everything yet, but that's coming.

One could always do it the very hard way in Gimp or something. :) Ok, maybe
not.. :)

>> No, new branches are experimental. And at Apache, we encourage
>> experimentation. To the point where on the Jakarta project we created a
>> manifesto for it that expresses some of the points in use from early days of
>> Apache. I'll try to dig that out of the archives and post it somewhere.
> I'd like to see it.

I finally figured out how to dig it out of the archives... It took a special
mix of being an apmail user and a fancy 'find . -exec grep' command. I've
posted it:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that new branches cannot be created. :-) I
> think that what is being expressed is a sense of dismay at the lack of news.

Ok, so regard this as news. A call to action. A discussion starter.

> You know, I could, theoretically, start a new FOP branch today, and it could
> contain one file - the interface for a complete FO processor, somewhat
> different than what we have now. Then I could go away for a few weeks.

I'm not going to go away for a few weeks. I'm only going to step it up. :)

> This would cause consternation and probably some anger - what's this guy up
> to? what's the direction of the project? am I spinning my wheels doing any
> more work on the main branch?

That's always a problem with revolutionary branches. It *does* cause
consternation on the main branch. Especially with the active developer
community. I am painfully aware of what the current core Xerces developers
are feeling as I've been there before. It's one of the things that gives
pause before you decide to do something like this. It's one of the things
that you have to take into account before you do something.

> Yes, you are correct. I think the significant thing here is that one
> normally doesn't start up a potential competitor under the auspices of the
> original. There would have been much less hullaballoo if this refactoring
> were taking place elsewhere, I think. Failing that, consider HR and
> politics. Keep people informed.

I think it would have been *less* open and cause *more* consternation to do
this elsewhere. However, if people would feel more comfortable with me going
off somewhere else to do this, so be it. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing
anywhere else besides Apache though. And, I have to warn you that if we
started spinnaker-dev@apache mailing lists, the likelyhood is very high that
we'd end up with 2 parsers. Is that a bad thing, no, probably not as they
would be targeted for very different things. But it's something that would
also cause probably consternation.

If the current Xerces team would feel more comfortable with me doing this
however, I'll be happy to oblige and try to do this. After all, I don't
really want to piss people off or cause consternation -- I want a better

> You said the magic word - "collaborate". To me that means "communicate
> design decisions and announce intentions".

See the subject line: Announce.

See the original message -- a start of a GOALS: section detailing out
intentions. Followed by a plan to get there. I submit that I *did* "announce
intentions" and *did* "communicate [initial] design decisions" :)

> We had a situation over with FOP when James Tauber gave the software to
> Apache, and because of real work, has essentially withdrawn. There was no
> formal handover process that would have ensured that James' ideas as to
> design and implementation were captured - no design documentation. I think
> that he himself would acknowledge that this is not good. FOP is just one
> among many OS projects in this regard.

Yes, however I have been following what you are doing on FOP -- and out of
all the xml.apache.org projects, it is FOP and Cocoon that are doing best
from a community process -- you are very real development communities. And
that's a *good* thing.

> Anyhow, I think this is interesting. Apache is maturing, and I don't think
> that is synonymous with "ossifying". :-) Stuff like this has to occur, and
> be argued, and dealt with.

Yep. Somebody said many years ago that at Apache, we don't always take the
best way of getting there, we have our problems, but somehow we do get
things done and in retrospect everything turns out good. Or something like
that -- I'll have to go look up the original...


View raw message