Quoting Tim O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > Quoting Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >>On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 23:58, robert burrell donkin wrote: > >> > >>>the RSS 0.91 is really just an example but many people find it a very > >>>useful one. creating digestions for RSS 1.0 and/or RSS 2.0 isn't really > >>>an itch i have but i suspect that if you were to create one and donate > >>>it to the ASF then there are probably a lot of folks who'd be > >>>grateful... > >> > >>While on that topic, I would like to move the RSS stuff from the main > >>library to the "examples" section before the next Digester release. > >> > > > > > > Defintiely +1. But an even stronger +1 on new commons components for "pure > data > > beans" that represent the data of common XML document formats like RSS. > For > > RSS itself, such a set of beans (which covered a reasonable attempt at a > union > > of all the variant formats, plus a way to plug in arbitrary extension) > would be > > *broadly* useful in both client and server applications that manipulate > > RSS-type data, far beyond the particular scenario of parsing XML->beans > (which > > is what the Digester example does) and the reverse beans->XML direction > (which > > is what an example in Betwixt does). > > Craig, > > Good idea, but I'd suggest that maybe something like that is a good > candidate for development outside of the ASF. I think it is a good > idea, but starting a Jakarta Commons project to house "pure data beans" > for commons data formats seems outside of the commons charter - you > start to think about boundaries, how it would scale, etc. > > Robert's idea of moving the RSS stuff to an examples distribution is a > good practical first-step. Maybe over the next few months if someone > steps up to the plate and donates and/or creates other Digester/Betwixt > examples they could be moved into the same example distribution, and > once enough momentum has developed we could create a new commons components. > > I like the idea, but I think we should take small steps. Encourage > people to take initiative, and then see if we need YACC (yet another > commons component) once we've got more than "n" rulesets. >
Oh, I definitely agree with you. That's kind of why I started my response with "Definitely +1" :-). But part of what I'd like to see happen in Commons (and everywhere else at Apache) is to have people start making visionary, forward-looking statements about how life might be different -- and potentially better -- if we could maybe sign up for some more radical, or at least 'out of the current box' visions of where we might end up. It doesn't matter to me particularly whether any single idea gains enough traction to actually happen. But what I've observed in j-c over the last year or so (to no small degree I've been a contributor to the problem by being focused elsewhere) of reduced innovation, and/or a focus on small evolutionary changes, instead of radical improvements to the state of the art. Don't get me wrong -- it is absolutely appropriate to suppport existing users of j-c code by evoluationary, backwards compatible, advances. But if that's *all* we do, then I think we're missing the boat. I'm trying to strike some matches on things I would be interested in seeing happen, and see if they start any fires with anyone else. Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
