On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:

> (Relatively few people oppose a java based commons TLP). Some solutions I
> can think of:

[relatively few within Jakarta, more outside I think]

> 1) j-c merges with a-c and we just have to get along. (Hen suggested a
> variation on how to start this, but the result is the same)

Yep.

> 2) a-c becomes an umbrella project housing a virtually independent java
> commons, a C commons, etc. I don't believe the Board or existing a-c would
> be happy with this.

I think this is up to the Commons community. Just because a minority of
committers to Serf on the future Commons PMC want it to be non-language
centric, the majority Java community who want to remain a community ought
to be controlling their own fate.

Effectively, if I were to take my proposal to the A-C guys, this would be
underlined as:  "The community decides. While the community is majority
Jakarta Commons, and we want to retain a language-centric separation, we
expect this to be allowed. ", or some such.

Personally I like the opportunity for non-language centric channels
to arrive, but I'm strongly in favour of Java remaining the major binding
factor in this current community.

> 3) a-c is disbanded completely. j-c is then promoted to TLP using the
> Commons name, and Java only.

I don't see the Board ever wanting this. It was said that A-C was created
partly because of success of J-C, so I can't see them wanting to drop
their desire for non-Java based C.

> 4) j-c merges up into Jakarta, once all the other bigger projects leave.

Possible if and only iff bigger projects want to leave.

> 5) j-c is promoted to TLP using a different name, such as Commons-J.

Pretty much the same as 3 I think in terms of people's view of the move.

> Personally I have great difficulty with #1. I believe #2 won't happen. #3
> would be really nice, but would require some humility in recognising a
> mistake made in a-c. #5 is messy, as Commons is 'our' name before it was
> kindof stolen. #4 is challenging, but maybe possible.

#3 is also pretty harsh on a-c. We were immediately put on the defensive
and have remained there since, so a lot of what their view has always been
viewed negatively.

While my solution attempts to put off the language-problems until later,
your, and other, replies have shown that we do have to be prepared to go
multi-language as a community. Chiefly this means letting the C code in I
think, as perl is well served by cpan and ruby has an equivalent. I'm
unsure on python, and I expect some C# cloning of Java tools may be
interested over time.

I'm equally happy with your #4, but I think the difficulty is harder than
the getting #1 to happen. It's based on the assumption that projects will
go TLP, and as Tomcat is synonymous with Jakarta in many locations, I can
see why they would want to retain the brand. It's also the same as #5 in
the long run.  #1 is within our control [and A-C], and not reliant on the
entire Jakarta community at large.

Hen


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to