Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> 1) A central resource 'repository', as envisioned by Costin
> (and others).
>
> 2) A central component 'Catalog', as envisioned by myself
> (and others).
Perhaps I'm dense, but I really don't see a sharp dividing line between the
two.
Is the point of #1 to include things that have absolutely nothing to do
with the Jakarta mission? If so, -1.
Is the point of #2 the ability to exclude people who have value and want to
contribute? If so, -1.
The essense of both is that ability to tolerate duplication and the desire
to minimize dependencies. Note that I didn't say encourage duplication or
eliminate dependencies; neither goal is practical or useful.
Stable interfaces and robust implementations are critical success factors
for both.
If the difference is whether or not we should include people whether or not
they have expressed any desire to contribute, then I will openly admit that
I don't see the point of automatic inclusion at this time.
If there is doubt that darwinian processes will achive stability of
interfaces in any reasonable period of time, then I would like to contrast
CPAN with some of the existing Jakarta projects which proport to make
available reusable components with stable interfaces.
What am I missing?
- Sam Ruby
