"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> I'm not as confident as some on this list that any component like a Digester or DB
> connection pool would ever grow to the status of a "top level" project. I think
> there is a level of functional complexity, and size of developer community, that
> distinguishes a "project" from a "component". For many of the components we're
> talking about, can you imagine that even the three developer minimum can be
> reached, after the original burst of interest dies down? I can't.
I agree. I don't think DBCP will ever be a 'top level project'. That's
why I think having a place for these to live is important. That said, I
also think that each meant to be standalone should follow the 'top level
project' semantics of having docs, a cleanly buildable jar, etc.
And when things do stablilize and developer interest dies down (and user
interest increases :) which I think is a natural process, then it's ok
to have a single committer acting as 'trustee' if development isn't
ongoing but its still used.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
