Ted Husted wrote:
>
> "Geir Magnusson Jr." wrote:
> > I disagree with your interpretation. Choice is good. Pointless
> > duplication isn't. I think that if there is a project <FOO> and someone
> > wants to add something new, great. If the community surrounding <FOO>
> > doesn't want that, then by all means start a new project. But really -
> > it should be something different, or new, or something that adds value,
> > something rational. Multiple implementations of the same identical
> > thing is a waste of talent and time.
>
> Code doesn't just grow on CVS trees ;-).
And the way this is going, there won't be 'trees' plural, just one
enourmous one. :)
> In this hypothetical, obviously
> somebody thought it was worthwhile, or it wouldn't exist. But, none of
> this is anything we can predetermine. When there is an actual codebase
> on the table, we can make an actual decision, and have an actual vote.
Of course, but I thought the point here is to get the basics
straightened out now before we propose.
The issue of this part of the thread is that costin was clarifying that
he believed that Agora/incubator can have any kind of code people want
to put in there, no matter what 'productized components' exist in the
library, and I was affirming my support for that notion.
Further, I was trying to clarify how that could be encoded into the
charter of this project - each subproject in the library is an
independant project a la Jakarta, with a separate set of committers, so
there can be no cross project influenece or interferance.
Because, (in my head), as Agora would be organizationally a peer to all
other 'productized compoenents', all Agora must do is stick to it's
charter (open incubator) and it is free to do that in any way the
committers of the Agora project see fit. Since it seems that the plan
is that every Jakarta committer would be an Agora committer, anything
could, would and should happen.
If they do 10 connection pools - wonderful. If they want to try to
bring one out to be an independant productized component, a project unto
itself, then we deal with the notion of 'is there anything different'.
If it's the same functionality, with nothing different other than
something academic like 'consistently employs the Fonebone design
pattern throughout', I would be inclined to vote against making a new
project. If it did something different (new interfaces supported,
whatever...) then we are 'cookin with gas'.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
