On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Peter Donald wrote:
> At 12:23 26/2/01 -0500, Ted Husted wrote:
> >(0) rationale
> >
> >Apache-Java and Jakarta originally hosted product-based subprojects,
> >consisting of one major deliverable. The Java language however is
> >package-based, and most of these products have many useful utilities.
> >Some products are beginning to break these out so that they can be used
> >independently. A Jakarta subproject to solely create and maintain
> >indenpendant packages is proposed to accelerate and guide this process.
> >
> >(1) scope of the subproject
> >
> >The subproject shall create and maintain servlet-related packages
> >written in the Java language designed to be used independently of any
> >larger product or framework. Each package will be managed in the same
> >manner as a larger Jakarta product. The subproject will also cross-list
> >and publicize packages available through other Jakarta subprojects.
> >
> >(2) identify the initial source from which the subproject is to be
> >populated
> >
> >The initial packages would be based on existing ASF codebases, including
> >those that provide services for DataSource/Database Pools, XML
> >Configuration, Message Resources and i18n, JNDI and Naming, and Testing
> >Suites. The initial committers have agreed to first create and maintain
> >a Database Connection Pool package, along with related testing suites
> >and subproject infrastructure.
>
> Hey - thats the Avalon project ! ;) Yep I definetly think there is enough
> overlap to be concern - we can "fix" this by either integratin with Avalon,
> reducing charter of both proposal and Avalon to be more explicit (ie
> library == JavaBeans, Avalon == integrated) or we can do combination of
> above (see last email).
>
At the risk of misinterpreting what Avalon is, I think option #B is the
best bet. To me Avalon seems to be specific to creating a framework for
building servers in java. The library seems to be a place to put very
specific components that will be useful in different contexts, some of
which will involve servlets or java servers or content management or...
If this is a fairly accurate interpretation of the Avalon project, then
there would seem to be enough of a difference to make the library project
a good idea(tm).
Beyond this, I think it might be somewhat counterproductive to Avalon to
have even a minor 'repurposing' proposed from people not-yet involved in
that project. Looking at this as an experiment, I think it is safest to
keep it seperate at least at first while the process and the kinks get
worked out. Creating a more specific set of goals for both projects can
only make the issue more clear, and hopefully we are on our way to that
goal.
David
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
> | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
> | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
> | everyone gets busy on the proof." |
> | - John Kenneth Galbraith |
> *-----------------------------------------------------*
>
>
