No :) [Damn.. I have to justify that? What happened to "Because I said so".... "Because it's hot and will hurt".... gah]
Jakarta's on the way out as it's a disjoint umbrella. Commons is a joint umbrella [erm... maybe I can't abuse English that way... overlapping umbrella] and is the way of the future(tm). Hen On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about this goes into Jakarta? > > > > > > On 4/10/08, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > > > I've been chatting to a few people at ApacheCon about a j2me commons, > > and > > > > they suggested I bring the idea to the dev list. > > > > > > > <snip/> > > > > > > I'm one of those people. > > > > > > > > > > > > > My idea was to have a commons library that implemented all the common > > > > things you want to do for j2me, which have annoyingly been missed out > > of > > > > the j2me spec, or are quite hard to do. > > > > > > > > Currently, I have a few functions that I've written for a project, > > which > > > > I'm happy to apache license. What I also have is tests for them, and > > some > > > > ant magic which allows you to build them on j2se, and also to unit > test > > > > them on j2se, against a j2me class library (assuming you have the sun > > wtk > > > > installed somewhere) > > > > > > > > > > > > Do people think this is worth putting in as a new sandbox component? > > I'm > > > > happy to oversee the new component, if people are happy for me to put > > it > > > > in (+grant myself appropriate svn karma to do so) > > > > > > > <snap/> > > > > > > I think we need a different name ( not [j2me] ). Please try to define > > > a scope via a proposal ( see recent example: > > > http://markmail.org/message/4z6z4zendcusdcnu ) -- its great for > > > archival so I like those things :-) > > > > > > All - > > > > > > I suggest we let Nick have a go at it. > > > > > > The scope / component size question raised is real. I think we will > > > have a better idea when we see the code. > > > > +1, good thinking. If things scope grows too large, they can always go > > upwards. It's much harder for an Incubator project or TLP to discover > > it was in fact too small and go downwards. As Nick's a committer, > > let's give him Sandbox space. > > > > Hen > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
