On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
+1 -- its time to establish that there are two equally useful pieces
here, with differing API styles, differing thresholds for involvement
and therefore, potentially attracting differing audiences (at the user
and developer level). The more shared developers we can retain the
better, ofcourse its understood that individual interests will trump
utopian views in this regard.
I think this goes a bit too far. There aren't two pieces, there are thirty
four. Stephen's proposal pulls a quarter of those out into a somewhat
cohesive bundle based on the J2SE and a tendency to have XxxUtils classes.
<snip/>
<THREAD-OT>
I'll henceforth keep that view to myself to minimize the noise, but it
Please don't. It's a better one than mine. "broad shallow" is a better
meme for the grouping than J2SE/XxxUtils.
</THREAD-OT>
We (the Jakarta community - ie: this list), presuming we decide to go with
the JLC proposal, still have to deal with the rest of Commons, and how the
rest of Jakarta fits into this. ORO/Regexp/BCEL seem like possibles for
JLC, ECS for JWC, Jelly+BSF+EL for some other place?
<snap/>
I hope to help in "dealing with" roC.
Yep, that's my chief point on the thirty four pieces, not two pieces - the
roC still needs solutions. Yet more where we should be thinking about our
project (Jakarta) and not just making one step (JLC) and being happy with
it.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
