Thomas Dudziak wrote:
On 3/7/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit on what the physical / visual-to-users
differences to the current commons, well, Jakarta sub-project will be
? Will this be a new Jakarta sub-project (and the other commons
components will remain in the current commons one) ?
I've been trying to dodge this question. Why? Because I want to
encourage other groupings (especially from commons) to self-select. If I
make a proposal, then it will be an imposition.
My hope is that in a few months we will have a mentality of working on
*Jakarta* components, not working on commons (or any other) components.
To achieve this will require other groupings.
Note: I suspect that some Jakarta sub-projects, perhaps POI, Turbine and
Velocity, may have real issues with this whole grouping philosophy. My
answer is to *not* force communities that are truly content with the
status quo to change.
Each grouping will have:
- a bland name (Jakarta Xxx Components)
- an identity (how and why does the group exist)
- sufficient size (to be active not inactive)
- mailing lists (one ML for all Jakarta doesn't work)
- SHARE COMMON ISSUES on a shared ML, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What I will say is that its too early to worry about website issues. For
now, all we need to know is that there will be a link somewhere to each
component, and probably a single page describing each group. Pages such
as release procedures etc are Jakarta-scoped and discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand this, but I wonder whether this move will have an
immediate negative effect on the other Jakarta components in terms of
developer attention both to the projects and to the users. As you say,
probably not so much for the direct Jakarta sub-projects like
Velocity, but for the other commons components.
This is a good question and the one that has always given me pause when
thinking about breaking up j-c. My expectation, though, is that like me
personally, many of the people that will be active in jlc will also
remain active in other components. The benefit will be for new
contributors or those who want to just focus on the jlc components. The
"does it make sense as an extension to JSE?" scoping criteria is also a
powerful means of focussing effort for this group.
As a side note, perhaps this is an opportunity to evaluate if there
are better homes for some of the components ? E.g.
betwixt/digester/jxpath could benefit from going to XML commons, dbcp
and dbutils from going to DB etc. ?
Definitely, but I think it is best to first get jlc set up and then let
these discussions happen independently. Changes should be driven by the
people in the communities who want to make them.
Phil
cheers,
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
