"Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
>
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
>
> > "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.
> >
>
> +1, except for having separate mailing lists (if you included that in "etc." :-).
I did :)
> A
> common list for all the library components seems more practical, and better at
> encouraging the use of other components in the library ("gee, I didn't know we had a
>FOO
> until I saw a question about it on commons-dev").
I think there should be a common list.
But also, I am just hoping that there gets to be so many useful
components, questions like "in AbstractFreem, why does Flarkle have to
be private *AND* final" will be annoying to people not involved in that
component project.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
