Henri Yandell wrote: > +1 on Jakarta.OJB. > -1 on Jakarta.DB-Commons unless otherwise convinced. > -1 on db.apache.org, unless people start offering bribes.
I agree with all that. Let's let something like jakarta-db[commons] or db.apache.org evolve naturally. Start small and let it grow. It seems like anything we might consider db-* appropriate would fit in either as a top-level or as part of an existing sub-project right now. I think we'd be better off with more projects following Cactus's trajectory--start as an in-scope part of some existing project and let it *grow* into a top level project. I'd rather have a couple of slightly misplaced projects incubating (for example, Latka in Commons or Maven in Turbine), then a bunch of grand plans later abandoned (I'll leave examples of that up to the reader). On a related note, I don't see a clear scope for db-commons right now. DB related? What about Struts? Turbine (not just torque)? Avalon? Isn't db-tags more about jsp/taglibs than databases (and more to the point, will share more code with, and change at the same rate as other jsp/taglib projects?) Do non-RDBMS systems count? Someone mentioned Axion. That's a fully fledged database. Does it fit or should it be a project unto itself? If we're wrong about db.apache or jakarta-db-commons, we're left with some silly (and confusing) organizational artifacts. If we're right, we'll be just as right if we decide to pull together the "generic" db projects out of various top-level and sub-top-level projects (whatever those might be) when it becomes clear what that project's role would be. - Rod
