> 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.
That's not what I'm proposing - if a project wants to share a component (
or develop a new component that is not specific to that project, but of
general interest ) it can use the common "repository" as long as it
accepts the rules:
1. follow the general guidelines ( we all agreed on )
2. Share the development with other projects, if other projects are
interested in using that component. That rules is supposed to encourage
other projects to use the component, knowing they have an official vote.
If a project doesn't want to share a component with other projects ( I'm
talking about control and development ) - then it shoulnd't use the
repository, but keep it private to that project.
( there are different degrees on the level of control sharing )
> > 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*.
And you want to fork the code and create your own version ? That's not
very nice. Maybe other project have a pool and they want to share. And
maybe turbine will see the benefits of sharing and decide to participate
in the library.
A lot of people claim the community is more important than the code - if
you can't get the community behind a FooPool, the code is not that
important.
> > 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?
I was assuming the goal of the project is to have jakarta projects share
code - not to take common code without it's community and create another
project out of it.
Costin
