----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 10:36
Subject: Re: Jakarta-tools ? Re: Code Sharing Concepts
>
> > 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:
>
> The only reason I push this concept here is because this group (i.e. the
> Apache java effort) is the most organized open-source java effort I've
> found to date. With Perl, it's led by some very smart, very
> community-oriented people. With Java, it's led by Sun who, while far
better
> than most corporate entitites, is not about to lead a charge to organize
> the world of Free Java Resources. I think the two threads you mentioned
are
> very related, in that the 'tools' you mention the various sub-projects
> within Jakarta needing most likely share some very common needs with
nearly
> all other major Java projects. That in putting together a repository you
> could also cover the needs of the various Jakarta projects in the same
> effort.
I agree for the most part. What I am concerned about is that trying to do
this as one huge project would create a huge hill to get the single project
over, as opposed to a smaller speedbump for the jakarta-related project and
a huge hill for the CJAN project. And again, the issue of 'is this in the
scope of jakarta' is clear on project 1 (Jakarta tools/zarf/sledge/etc), not
so clear on project 2('CJAN').
>
> I'm not entirely sure I'm making myself clear here, but the idea of this
> thread initially is that common needs run through Jakarta projects, and
> that a utils package could address that. But those same needs run
> throughout Java projects in general and I think settings up a repository
of
> what's out there would answer lots of questions about the utils package
> within Jakarta. Imagine the pooling engine from Turbine and from Struts in
> one directory, and 10, 20 users all downloading and evaluating both for
> their various projects. We'd then have a source of information about the
> strengths and weaknesses of BOTH engines, rather than being forced to rely
> on the admittedly biased opinions of the very smart folks who coded both
> up.
>
I absolutely agree that just about everyone 'out there' would benefit, and I
think almost all of the postings so far have agreed as well. But even if
this is one 'project', the goals here have two very distinct timelines and
cost in terms of effort.
> Seems to me the two threads evoke the same basic need, centralization.
> -jc
>
I agree, but there are/can be different levels of centralization ;)
David Weinrich
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> James Diggans Phone: 301.987.1756
> Gene Logic, Inc. FAX: 301.987.1701
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 301.908.2477
> -------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
