For the short term, I'm not sure what is best for JCS or Jakarta. Stepping back and looking at JCS in relation to other Jakarta projects might be helpful. The commons is described as a "Repository for small scale, reusable, code components that are useful in multiple Jakarta subprojects." A small-scale component does not sound like a good description of JCS. Instead, JCS looks more like a standalone tool such as Log4J, although JCS is somewhat bigger. I'm not sure this means it should be its own project at this point or not. JCS is being used on its own outside of Jakarta and within, making it look more like a candidate for standalone status. Also, there are commercial standalone caching applications on the market. I'm sure JCS would be much more widely used if we got out a release. Right now, the major impediment is that users have to build it themselves. If we had a release, more sample applications and further documentation, it would become more widely adopted. It is somewhat hidden right now: it's not listed on the main product page on the Jakarta site. One reason one might give for not making JCS a top level project is that it is understaffed right now, though this may change if it was moved up. Aaron Smuts
