I agree that reuse is a great idea. I wonder if we should consider this option for new development or when other significant changes are being made, rather than change existing mechanisms just to use common components. I think someone suggested enhancing network server scripts to use NT service mechanism sometime ago. That could be a great project to pilot some of the common frameworks.
Satheesh Jeremy Boynes wrote: > David Van Couvering wrote: > >> I like code reuse rather than having to write and maintain our own >> work. That's a big pull of open source is building from what others >> have done. I vote for including the libraries in derby.jar, rather >> than having jar-file explosion. >> > > The reuse aspect is really why I want to explore this. Re-implementing > everything in Derby may be OK for simple stuff like command line > parsing but will be problematic for more complex things like JMX. > > The open community aspect should not be underestimated - a project > that refuses to even consider other open source solutions will very > rapidly become isolated. > > I would not recommend bundling things inside derby.jar as that leads > to classes being loaded from unexpected places (e.g. I would not > expect org.apache.commons.cli.Something to come from derby.jar). > >> One concern is making sure we include third-party stuff with >> compatible licensing. What is the process for making we don't get >> into some legal tangle? >> > > The ASF has strict policies on what can be used by ASF projects to > ensure that the final distribution is compatible with the Apache > License. This basically comes down to only being able to use other > software if its license is no more restrictive than the Apache License. > > -- > Jeremy > > >
