JAKARTA-GUMP: +0 I'm not involved in Gump enough to make a call on this one. JAKARTA-ALEXANDRIA: +0 see above CENTAVEN: -1
Centaven Reasoning: I don't see how we can easily do this. The approaches are wildly different at basic levels, e.g. dvsl vs xsl, entities vs external build files for ant, extending GUMPs descriptor vs generating one etc. Any 'coming together' is going to be a very difficult decision to get past the maven developer community, because they have a tool that works and is going in a consistent direction from a design perspective, and that coming together will result in much slowing of progress. I don't think, IMHO, either tool is mature enough at this point to merge. I'm also a little worried about the size/vocality of the centipede developer community. Krysalis lists (in the archive) total 53 posts. Maven dev (includes cvs) has 780, and the user list 151. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers <costinm@coval ent.net> To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: 05/02/02 08:15 Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Centaven and Friends (was Re: You make the AM decision (was Re: Quick! convert all your projects to maven!)) Please respond to "Jakarta General List" +1 I would go even further and propose a top level project that will host all project-management tools, including Gump. While gump doesn't have a very big community of developers ( I wish I had more time), it is an essential tool for jakarta, and I think 'it is the real thing'. There are many solutions for the same problem - and it seems Centipede is based on Cocoon and XSLT, which would make it my preference ( if I would need such a tool ). I know other people dislike xslt - and I think it's fair to have a choice. Having a single repository and top level project, with possible common components ( while preserving the important choices of each project ) is a good solution, and until this happen I don't consider either of the 2 projects 'mature' enough. Costin On Wed, 1 May 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > ******************** > WHY KRYSALIS > ******************** > > From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I've no problem with that if Ken is given committer access, the > > community agrees and comes up with a plan to integrate the two and all. > > I just figured it made more sense to have a project specifically for it > > rather than a subproject of a subproject that has nothing to do with it > > in general. > > This is why Centipede came up on Krysalis instead of Apache. > > I followed the discussion we had here on if/how to accept projects at > Apache, and about why Jakarta is not Sourceforge. > Krysalis came up with the goal of pursuing Apache-style projects out of > Apache itself, till they mature to a level at which they can honestly > propose themselves on this list. > > Personally, I have already tried to collaborate with Maven on the Alexandria > list, even only at the descriptor level, and unfortunately have miserably > failed (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=101713408000002&r=1&w=2) > > This is why Maven and Centipede have different descriptors. > > BTW, the Centipede module.xml descriptor is an enhanced Gump descriptor, and > works OOTB with Gump itself. > > ********************** > CENTAVEN? > ********************** > > > But there has to be a sincere effort not just a "squash > > centipede by saying yes to the proposal then -1ing the implemnetation". > > I just want the "to". > > I just want a build system that gives you the possibilities of Centipede, > which Maven still lacks. > > That said, I don't care where the project resides. My decision of putting it > on Krysalis was taken to abide as much as possible to Jakarta standards, but > it seems that stretching them to ones needs is more effective. > > > Personally I'd like to see the combined Centaven moved to a > > jakarta.org/centaven level. If this effort is truely undertaken, POI > > will upgrade to a combined centaven. (I don't care what its named its > > the senitment).. . Then who wins? Well everyone. We get what we need. > > I'm +1000 for this, as I have always been. > > So, let me throw the stone. > > > -oOo- > > > Here is what I think is in the best intrest of ALL on Jakarta, let's see > what the Jakarta Community thinks. > > *************************** > PROPOSALS > *************************** > This multi-proposal is an effort to unite forces on the build-system front > and to give a sense to all project build/documentation/site projects on > xml.apache and Jakarta. > > > JAKARTA-GUMP > *********************** > Alexandria started as a multi-project documentation system, and is now dead. > Gump started there by using the Alexandria descriptors but has become a > conyinuous-integration tool. > > I propose that it finally becomes a top-level Jakarta project, as it is now > de-facto. > > The Vindico proposal will migrate to that project as well and will have the > possibility to challenge the current de-facto Gump codebase with a vote as > permitted by the Jakarta rules. > > > JAKARTA-ALEXANDRIA > ******************************* > Alexandria still has an important mission, that of creating beautiful > cross-referenced Java project documentation. > Maven has taken part of the code-base AFAIK and is using it. > Centipede is producing source-code cross reference with javasrc and > umldoclet, and is working on creating SVG UML package charts. > > Alexandria can continue with its mission. > Maven can port-back the code it uses. > Javasrc developer Bill Smith has decided to DONATE the code to the > Alexandria project and continue coding there > (http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=1552505). > Centipede will give all the code it has that generates documentation. > > CENTAVEN > ******************* > Maven and Centipede have similar goals but different approaches. > > I would like to see them united, and have a single project description > system. > > We have the need, we have the community, we have the code. > > Centipede will never be able to make it into Maven and viceversa, because > the approaches are very different. > > I think that these can be overcome, and that we can devide a comon system > that solves *all* our _needs_. > > > SUMMARY > ******************* > Here is my +1+1+1 for all three proposals. > > This is the best I can do, and what I think is in the best interest for > Apache. > > What do you think? > > -- > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
