Hi Oliver.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi,
Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles:
Hi Benedikt.
On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
[...]
My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong
into commons. They are to specific and should form a TLP on their
own.
The only working definition I know of "Commons" is: a home for
projects too small to exist on their own.
I gathered that what is important is that there are people willing
to maintain the component.
But that’s only my opinion.
I *really* do not understand how you form an opinion that
"RNG" and "Numbers" do not belong as rightfully as <any other>
component.
The Commons charter mentions "reusable libraries and components". I
used
to interpret this as general-purpose components, meaning that they
are
useful for applications in multiple domains. This definition should
hold
for most of the components we have now.
But not for "RNG" or "Numbers"?
How many is "multiple"?
It does not hold for specialized math components.
Do you believe that the other components are not "specialized"?
I never had the need for any of the "Commons" components except
CM, but it would not occur to me to speculate about how largely
useful they actually are.
I trust their creators/maintainers in that respect.
Now, you can validly argue that people needing the kind of
math-related stuff of CM would not use Java... ;-)
Therefore, I
personally feel uneasy with them and would have difficulties to
provide
oversight for them.
As long as someone else helps where you cannot, what's the
problem?
And when nobody can, there is "dormant"...
Gilles
But granted, the distinction is not very clear, and this is my
interpretation.
Oliver
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
