From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Is there a rule somewhere about not having sandbox components as a > > dependency? Or is this a general call to move Jelly to commons? > > It's really time Jelly goes to Commons proper, don't you think? > It's more active than Latka itself ATM, and used by more and more > Jakarta projects. > > +1 > > Let's see the plan :-)
:-) I'd really like a stable release of Jelly out ASAP so migrating it to the commons proper sounds like a great idea. Though I am having second thoughts on whether Commons is the right place for Jelly; maybe it should be a top level Jakarta project? Jelly started out as a little reusable XML scripting engine that could be embedded anywhere and is increasingly growing in scope to have all kinds of add-on libraries like JellyUnit, JellySwing and to do things like SOAP scripting (via Apache Axis). So I'm starting to think it needs to be a top level project with its own sub-projects. Do others think this is a good idea? Either way I'd like to see Jelly promoted very soon. Incidentally Jelly also has dependencies on Jexl which would need to be promoted to the commons proper too before a release could be made. James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
