Actually from how I understand it...you both are right. Check out this
again:
http://husted.com/about/jakarta/lib005.htm
it really covers both cases. Check out section 1-section 2...
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Geir, I guess you may be right - in some cases it may be better to have a
> separate CVS tree and each component and the people working on it should
> decide by themself.
>
> It is wrong to force one way or another.
>
>
> > Further, my opinion is that you simply better have a good reason to
> > duplicate existing function. If you have something to add, go to the
> > existing project. If they don't want it, then you have a good reason to
> > start another one. There will at least be a differentiating factor.
>
> Once again - that may be true, but I hope we all agreed that "agora" is
> open to anything that commiters and projects want to do - regardless of
> "duplication" or other arguments like this.
>
> And I do disagree - you are better of having to choose between different
> implementations than by having a "right and perfect" project. Not only
> choice is good, but it also reduce the tensions among people and results
> in a healty community - most of the flames and tensions I saw so far were
> a direct result of people arguing they have the "right and
> perfect" solution ( in other words - intolerance to others ).
>
> But again, we have to agree to disagree.
>
> ( I lived in a system with a single party and a single "right" way )
>
>
>
> > And for that matter, why stop there? See if you can get tomcat bundlded
> > into j2ee.jar :)
>
> It is already ( not only j2ee - but AFAIK enchydra and ejboss - 2 other
> implementations of the same APIs :-).
>
>
> > > But there is one thing you forgot - a component needs first to be
> > > "aproved" - you can't have jakarta-DBCP until the library commiters agree
> > > that whatever code we have is ready and mets the requirements.
> >
> > No. This is the wierd model I didn't vote for - I think that the
> > library committers agree that the DBCP project is needed, and the people
> > proposing it are earnest in intent, have the skills to make pulling it
> > off a possiblity, etc. Then, it's free from the control of the library
> > committers as a group, and control belongs to the committers of that
> > project, modulo remaining true to the charter of their project and
> > Jakarta. (Hopefully lots of the library committers would want to join
> > and help, but we all are busy and time is scarce.)
>
> I can't stop you - as long as DBCP will not claim to be the "only" way.
>
> Costin
>
>
>
