David Weinrich wrote:
>
> If you seperate the discussion into two seperate threads, it makes more
> sense. Like I posted recently, I am starting to look at this as two seperate
> issues:
>
> 1) A collection of of tools built by and hopefully used by jakarta community
> members. For the most part I would guess that these tools would fit common
> needs of the projects within jakarta and/or related to the daily use of the
> products of these projects.
And outside! We are talking about things that are important to others
'outside'. To apply futher violence to the equine with a negative care
outcome, db connection pool...
> 2) A large collection of contributed tools similar to CPAN, organized in a
> way that encourages good documentation/versioning/whatever else. There is a
> huge amount of infrastructure that would be needed to make this 'work',
> which also means this would be a longer term project with a much larger
> scope. I am not sure this really fits within the scope of jakarta or apache
> ( this is more a lack of my understanding of these scopes, not a well formed
> or concrete opinion ).
>
> Breaking this down in this way seperates the conflicts in how long each
> would take, and how each fits in the way things currently work.
+1
I agree.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Velocity : it's not just a good idea. It should be the law.
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
