[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am interested in a component repository for the existing code in
> projects - where the projects can share the code if they choose to.
>
> It looks like in the current form, the library is duplicating Avalon -
> it's goal is to create productized server-side components, and I don't see
> any reason you'll need another project doing the same thing.
Well, if Avalon really is doing that, I am happy to shut up and go over
there...
But if not -
So far, the proposal was to start two subprojects, (1) DBCP and (2)
Testing, I think.
Why not add a third (3) Repository, lead by Costin, in the model of
all-inclusive, everyone gets a vote, add code and you're a committer,
aka 'JakartaForge'. That fits into the model, as a subproject, like a
regular Jakarta project, has reasonable control over it's destiny and
rules, so if anything goes, anything goes. It will certainly be a good
test to see how that community model works compared to the Jakarta
community model.
> All you have to do is contribute code to avalon, like any user, become a
> commiter - and then propose new components. I don't see any significant
> diference to require a new jakarta project. After all, the project goal
> is the same, and everything else is implementation detail ( i.e. how do
> you organize the code ) - and if you can propose it to avalon and be voted
> by existing avalon commiters.
Well, for a while there, Avalon was working under it's "cover charter",
claiming to be a 'framework' - when it's reborn here in Jakarta (isn't
that what is happening?), I guess we can see.
> > >From what I gathered our plan of attack was (1). ie Our first module would
> > be the DBPool. We would extract it from somewhere (say turbine) refactor
> > it. Then push it back into turbine with a wrapper that integrates it into
> > the turbine framework. We would then try to integrate it into struts and
> > anyone else that uses DB pools. Then we would pick another component and do
> > the same. Have I got this correct/wrong?
>
> And why not letting the original authors of a component decide for
> themself what to do with a component ? And why not let turbine decide if
> they want to share the component and how to do it ?
They do - they released the code under APL, sharing with everyone. But
they are currently choosing to keep it integrated in Turbine,
subordinate to the needs of turbine, and not documented as a separable
unit. That is the choice *they* are making *today*.
> What makes you think that whatever DBPool you choose will be better ? And
> what makes you think that a project will be happy to replace some code
> they developed and serve their purpose with something they have no control
> over ?
Why do you think that projects will be *required* to replace their code
with the so-called 'library' code?
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
