On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Will Glass-Husain wrote:
Thanks, Henri. My feedback.
Thanks, very useful stuff.
* Generally positive with an aversion to anything involving significant work for the sake of a "cleaner Jakarta". By this I mean that I like the idea of a flatter hierarchy and a clearer message to the public as to what Jakarta is about. As I noted on the Velocity list, 4 years ago I discovered Velocity after identifying Jakarta as a "cool Java project resource" and then browsing through every project looking for useful libraries. We should encourage that.
Yep. I need to post on Idea #3: Jakarta as Java federation at some point :) Which mainly means having links and decriptions to other Java projects at Apache and making [EMAIL PROTECTED] more of a discussion list than Jakarta business list.
* I'm skeptical about the "common build and web site" part of your plan.
Agreed that technical issues may cloud this one. Having common structure allows for people to work on each component more easily; but more importantly it forces us into a single community.
It also stops components becoming component trees. ie) I'll be pushing for velocity-tools to be a separate component from velocity. Guess an SVN reorg will probably be in the works at some point :)
One part of common build is that each component produces only 1 deliverable. Not sure if that's worked perfectly in Commons, a few components have a couple of jars, though 1 is always the most important (much like velocity/velocity-tools). Producing 1 deliverable stops subcomponentizing.
Seems like an awful lot of reorg work for little purpose. Many sites have a maven site build. Who is going to integrate all of the projects so that the individually desired features appear on each site. Same for building. Velocity has a mildly customized build script that compiles differently under JDK 1.3 and JDK 1.4/5. If we go to a "master web site and build" this will make it too difficult to introduce changes to the proces and will stifle innovation. Better to keep this at the subproject level. (Note:
*goto jail, do not pass go* s/subproject/component/ No more subprojects :)
Jakarta-wide style guidelines with common fonts, colors, logos would be a great idea though).
Good point. Common general l&f binds us together more.
* Also, I'm against changing the project names. Velocity (for example) is a recognizable brand name. Calling it "Jakarta Template Language" or something similar would be foolish.
It'd be Jakarta Velocity; but it might fall in the TemplateLanguage group. I think we'll need groupings for sanity's sake, but we have to avoid them gaining character. They're just vague tags and not actual subprojects.
* On a positive note, establishing a standard template for web site format and build would speed up the introduction of new subprojects. We could migrate the common subprojects to a standard, and encourage new subprojects to use it. But if a group wants to modify this template for one piece of it - why not? (as long as they keep some common Jakarta fonts, colors, etc).
Right. Individual character is important. Same with the build; as long as it's largely the same, individual bits to handle individual issues are fine. We just need to have the norm be to be similar.
Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
