> > 1. A project should be able to share some code/components. I don't see
> > myself using or participating in a library that is not open to all
> > jakarta projects. And please don't call it library if the books are going
> > to be selected by "library commiters".
>
> 1) I never called it a *library*. That got stuck on by Ted et al. I
> wanted to call it 'Rupert', as there should be no preconcieved notions
> with that name. Apologies to anyone named 'Rupert' by the way. I would
> use 'Geir', but no one can pronounce it... :)
This list is named "library-dev", and the I was mislead into believing
the goal is to help projects to share code. That is something I am
interested in.
It seems you want to create (another) project that creates shared code (
avalon has exactly the same goal - if I read it corectly ).
> 2) Why wouldn't you use it? If the stuff is good, and the APIs stable,
> you would ignore it because, for example, Velocity (whose core has
There is a lot of good stuff around , and plenty of choices for any
component - I'll not "ignore", but I'll still look around for a
real library to contribute to.
> I guess, to follow the library analogy, a library still contains
> individual books, that have been edited, published, and then selected by
> the library. It's not like the general public stocks the shelves
> themselves....
I don't think so - the library collects books written, edited and
published by different people. I don't see how it can be called "open" if
a group of authors are voting to allow other authors to add books to the
library.
In any case - I hope Ted will include the 2 proposals in the final vote,
and I'll let the majority decide what will be the goal and rules for this
project.
I think it is very important to have a common place where projects can
share code - but it doesn't have to be this project. It's up to the
majority of each project to decide - and up to each individual to
contribute and use whatever project he feel is right. I'll keep looking
for a library :-)
Costin
