Michael Davey wrote:
Jakarta is the *brand*. It defines itself. Jakarta brand development. A brand can give a unique identity and grouping to an otherwise disparate and commodity range of goods and services.

Apache is a brand too, and, IMHO, a much stronger brand than Jakarta.

I believe Jakarta distracts people from the fact that everything we do here is on behalf of the Apache Software Foundation. We are not "Jakarta Committers", we are "Apache Committers". We use the Apache License, package our product for apache.org, check code into cvs.apache.org, and donate every line to the Apache Software Foundation.

I realize that there are people who have romantic notions about "Jakarta" and like to talk about preserving Jakarta for Jakarta's sake. But for the life of me, I can't see why. For me, it's always been about the codebase and its community. If a product I use is hosted at SourceForge, I work at SourceForge. If it's hosted at Jakarta, I work at Jakarta. If it's a top-level ASF project, then I work there. I go where my community lives; and my community is centered on a codebase, not a hostname.

There are people who have called Jakarta a "jewel". I'd agree that Cactus is a jewel, as is Lucene, and Velocity, and all the other *communities* we've built around our codebases. But Jakarta is not the jewel, at best it's a jewelry box.

All along, there have been people who envisioned a "Jakarta community". But, what's the point of that, really? We already have the Apache community and the open source community. Why do we need another community within a community? What's the point of another layer of indirection?

In my experience, if you make a significant contribution to any open source codebase anywhere, its community will welcome you with open arms. We don't need hostnames to create communities. People create their own communities and forge their own relationships, by the simple virtue of their contributions.

And look what's happening with logging: Now that it's a TLP, they are bringing-in the various Log4J compatibles. Now, there can be one Apache logging project serving every platform. That's community-building!

The real, underlying issue with Jakarta is that most of our products are *not* about Java. They are about a feature set. Java was just a convenient implementation language, but most of our products could be implemented in other languages and made available to a broader community.

In fact, many have, but since they are not Java implementations, we have multiple communities around a product instead of one. A language-centric project like Jakarta doesn't create community, it dilutes it.

But I would not say that Jakarta is broken. I'd say Jakarta is finally starting to work. The proof that Jakarta is working is that products are finally growing up and becoming projects.

Every worthy parent's goal is self-sustaining children. The Foundation, like a good parent, has always tried to build self-sustaining projects -- projects that can outlive their creators. I'm happy that some of these projects were born at Jakarta and became great enough to join our top-level peers.

So, why are Ant, Maven, Logging, Slide, et al, graduating to top-level Apache projects: because they can :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to