--- Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/6/2001 at 11:26 AM Delagrange, Morgan wrote:
> >Right, but the Jakarta PMC chairman objects to that
> definition.
>
> I'm not sure if Sam Ruby has actually "objected" or
> not. It is evident
> that Roy Fielding has objected to the scope of the
> Jakarta Project. As
> it stands, the current mission given on the Web site
> is technically
> incorrect. If we want a broader scope, it's obvious
> that the ASF will
> require a board resolution to put things right.
>From Sam's comments, it seems pretty clear that he'd
rather expand the scope than start pruning
subprojects.
> >If you make the definition of Jakarta this
> restrictive
>
> Jakarta's charter is * already * that restricted.
> The contract between
> the ASF and the Jakarta PMC reads that Jakarta is
> "charged with the
> creation and maintenance of open-source Java
> Servlet-related software
> for distribution at no charge to the public."
Agreed, many Jakarta projects are currently out of
scope according to the current charter.
> As you pointed out, the Jakarta PMC has exceed its
> original charter.
> The ASF board chairman has raised an exception, and
> presented two
> alternatives: (1) A broader charter or (2) More
> PMCs.
>
> Some people seem to like the idea of a broader
> charter. Other people
> have said they don't. I'm just suggesting that as a
> followup to Roy's
> suggestion (2) that we consider whether chartering
> Java-Apache for the
> out-of-scope projects makes any sense.
Thanks to Jon for clarifying the deprecation of the
java.apache.org domain. The current Jakarta site
states:
The older Java Apache Project will have its
projects merged into the Jakarta Project
in the near future (no set date). For more
information please see the announcement on that
website.
If this is still the case, fine. If not, we need a
new plan of action, since clearly java.apache.org
needs to go away.
> >Really, if you limit the scope of the Jakarta
> project to Servlet-based
> >technologies, the list of in-scope projects is very
> short:
>
> But, is that a bad thing?
It's too specific. See next comment.
> >projects like Slide and Struts, which only deal
> with servlets in part
>
> I can't vouch for Slide, but Struts is definately
> Java Servlet-related
> software.
I didn't say there weren't servlet-related components
in Struts, I'm saying there's a lot more in Struts
than servlet stuff; hence you can easily argue that
Struts is not entirely in-scope. Much of Struts deals
with servlets, but Struts also provides frameworks for
XML parsing and database pooling, correct? Since
these are not specifically servlet-related, they would
have to be removed from the project.
I'm not arguing for Jakarta becoming the one giant
Java project, I'm just saying that a Servlet-oriented
charter is too inflexible. I'd rather see a charter
that focuses on Java servers and related tools (and I
think Ant in particular may not fit, but that's
another argument).
- Morgan
=====
Morgan Delagrange
Britannica.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
