Being in the process of writing an XML processing library called joran, I am thoroughly impressed by Jelly's capabilities. Even if its documentation is imho somewhat lacking, Jelly looks like one of the most promising projects currently under the Jakarta umbrella.
At 14:33 14.10.2002 +0100, James Strachan wrote: >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/ >__________________________________________________ -- Ceki TCP implementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others. -- Jon Postel, RFC 793 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
