+1. Flat is good. Auxilliary is good as optional is increasingly used with a legal policy slant (ie: some licences are okay for optional but not required).
Hen On 12/13/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (this somewhat follows on tangentally from the discussions on > commons-collections-functor) > > i've been thinking over the last few weeks about the best approach for > non-core code in existing components which is distributed as separate > optional artifacts for reasons such as dependency management. i'd like > to coin the term for auxillary components for these. > beanutils-collections is an example of an auxillary component. > > IMHO there are some good reasons why it would be easier to manage > auxillary components as separate components rather than as > sub-components. it's easier to automate a flat structure than one which > allows optional sub-components to allow reliable builds for releases and > the website. it's also about community: a flatter structure seems to > work out better. also, visibility. > > in particular, i'm thinking about proposing commons-logging-extras and > commons-logging-specification as new components. > > but i'd like to gauge the consensus first (just in case the vote gets > messy otherwise). > > opinions? > > - robert > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
