I've took the message below as a proposal by itself, and it has
+1
I agreed completely with the points and concerns expressed by Costin..
Saludos ,
Ignacio J. Ortega
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviado el: viernes 23 de febrero de 2001 4:12
> Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Asunto: Re: [POLL] General Consensus, Round 2
>
>
> > 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
>
>
