Berin Lautenbach wrote: > My understanding (FWIW!) is that A is the intention, but that we also > try to move common code into xml-commons when it makes sense. I.e. if > there is some code that is replicated in a number of projects, and it > makes sense to consolodate, then we might move a single instance into > xml-commons. > > Also - I'd hate to think we would be arbitrarily restricted by what the > documentation states a particular part of xml is for.
That is why i raised it. Actually if one looks back through the commons-dev archives there is discussion about the proposal for DoctypeChanger which has not seen light. At the time i could not understand what the fuss was about. Maybe this happened because people interpreted the words as case B). Today i read the words again and feel that the statement is very unclear. > If those looking > after commons think something is a good idea, but it doesn't quite fit > with what is documented, put it to the general list and we can all comment! I feel a bit alone at commons-dev so will come here to talk about some of the issues. --David > Cheers, > Berin > > David Crossley wrote: > > <quote> > > http://xml.apache.org/commons/#java > > Apache-authored code > > xml-commons' secondary goal is to provide a project space for small > > XML-related utilities that are being used in *multiple* other > > xml.apache.org projects > > </quote> > > > > Would someone please clarify the intention of those words. > > > > It can be read in two ways ... > > > > A) Having the utilities at xml-commons enables them to be used > > by various other projects, thus avoiding duplication. > > > > B) The utilities cannot live at xml-commons until they are used > > by at least two other xml.apache.org projects. > > > > I hope that A) is the intention. > > > > --David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
