Nicola and Jeff have articulated the problems quite clearly, and duplication of effort is only a tip of the iceberg. Tightly coupled means grows in functionality slowly, by definition, as in another version of BigBallOfMud.
There is only one person that gains from code that isn't componentized, and that is the author. Ego drives open source, and pride is it's currency. This is how it should be, but for everyone else, PITA. This is where I disagree with the XP rule that you don't plan for re-use. You DO plan for re-use, and JMX and/or Avalon is the logical way to do take Apache to the next level. My 2c: You guys don't know how cool it is what you got. If it ever hit you what the possibilities were, and all Apache projects were componentized as a first step, you would be overwhelmed with the potential, and so would the rest of Apache. Why isn't Struts Avalonized? etc. Duplication? It would be hard NOT to resolve the duplication problems if Apache was Avalonized, because when you got to duplicate functionality, there would be this elephant in the living room that had to be dealt with before moving on. So MUCH duplication. Hell, it's not duplication, it's out and out competition. My thing is better than your thing. If only I could figure out whether the JBOSS approach of JMX and hot pluggability, or the Avalon approach was the better of the two. Or is this another case of un-necessary confusion on my part? If so, there seems to be a lot of that going around. Rodney King circa 1992, paraphrased: "Can't we all just get along?" Of course not. That would take all the fun out of it. Less fun would be better, in this one instance. Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: >From: "Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>It's disturbing to have all these "gosh I never knew" replies ;) Seems >>that Jakarta has far exceeded the point where one person can have a >>functional overview of all the subprojects. Past this point, code >>duplication inevitably occurs. Witness the Maven vs Centipede/Forrest >>flamefest on general@jakarta -- I reckon both camps were largely >>unaware of each other. >> > >I'm subscribed to the Maven mailing lists and regularly install Maven to >test it. >But is someone (guess who) keeps on saying that a project has a certain >functionality when it isn't true... ;-) > >The problem is not technical, ie how to inform people of the existence of a >project. > >When I read: >"Many Jakarta projects read XML configuration files to provide >initialization of various Java objects within the system. There are several >ways of doing this, and the Digester component was designed to provide a >common implementation that can be used in many different projects." > >I thought:"Gee, here comes another codebase to duplicate Avalon >Configuration stuff". > >When I read:"Basically, the Digester package lets you configure an XML -> >Java object mapping module, " > >I thought: "Hey, Castor2." > >Well, guess what, I was wrong. It's not about configuration, it's not about >XML-Java *object* mapping, but XML-Java *method* mapping, which is not >clearly evident from the start. > >Just to think of it, I thought that Cocoon was just the duplication of >servlets with a couple of xml stuff attached, and it took me 3 months to go >back on the site and have another look. > >The fact that there is code duplication IMO is killing the projects, because >users don't even read the info, since we're all baised towards thinking that >it's just duplication. > >-- >Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >
