Return-Path: 
 <general-return-7105-apmail-xml-general-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 48313 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 09:22:40 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 09:22:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 84343 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2004 09:22:10 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 84299 invoked by uid 500); 18 Mar 2004 09:22:10 -0000
Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:general-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:general@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 84275 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 09:22:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO www2.kc.aoindustries.com) (65.77.211.84)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 09:22:10 -0000
Received: from dialup-173.147.220.203.acc01-aubu-gou.comindico.com.au
 (dialup-173.147.220.203.acc01-aubu-gou.comindico.com.au [203.220.147.173])
	(authenticated)
	by www2.kc.aoindustries.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2I9LjT06331
	for <general@xml.apache.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:21:46 -0600
Subject: Re: purpose of Apache XML Commons project
From: David Crossley <crossley@apache.org>
To: general@xml.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <405963C6.6070407@wingsofhermes.org>
References: <1079582547.1766.54683.camel@ighp>
	 <405963C6.6070407@wingsofhermes.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: 
Message-Id: <1079601738.1768.56566.camel@ighp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) 
Date: 18 Mar 2004 20:22:18 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> My understanding (FWIW!) is that A is the intention, but that we also 
> try to move common code into xml-commons when it makes sense.  I.e. if 
> there is some code that is replicated in a number of projects, and it 
> makes sense to consolodate, then we might move a single instance into 
> xml-commons.
> 
> Also - I'd hate to think we would be arbitrarily restricted by what the 
> documentation states a particular part of xml is for.

That is why i raised it. Actually if one looks back through the
commons-dev archives there is discussion about the proposal
for DoctypeChanger which has not seen light. At the time i could
not understand what the fuss was about. Maybe this happened
because people interpreted the words as case B). Today i read
the words again and feel that the statement is very unclear.

> If those looking 
> after commons think something is a good idea, but it doesn't quite fit 
> with what is documented, put it to the general list and we can all comment!

I feel a bit alone at commons-dev so will come here to talk
about some of the issues.

--David

> Cheers,
> 	Berin
> 
> David Crossley wrote:
> > <quote>
> > http://xml.apache.org/commons/#java
> > Apache-authored code
> > xml-commons' secondary goal is to provide a project space for small
> > XML-related utilities that are being used in *multiple* other
> > xml.apache.org projects
> > </quote>
> > 
> > Would someone please clarify the intention of those words.
> > 
> > It can be read in two ways ...
> > 
> > A) Having the utilities at xml-commons enables them to be used
> > by various other projects, thus avoiding duplication.
> > 
> > B) The utilities cannot live at xml-commons until they are used
> > by at least two other xml.apache.org projects.
> > 
> > I hope that A) is the intention.
> > 
> > --David



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org