Ok, this is the last message - really ! :-)
I have to go - I'll be back on Tuesday ( I'll try to read my mail, and if
the PMC chat is open I'll try to log in ) - we don't seem to make too
much progress anyway.
Regardless of the final decision I'll contribute and work on
agora ( or sandbox ) components - and I'll use "commons" components. But
I don't want to be part of the group that rules what's right and wrong for
a component and is overruling decisions made by jakarta projects.
Ted, if the final vote is that only "commons"-voted code can be released
please remove my name from the proposal, I'll remain a contributor in the
sandbox ( as regular jakarta commiter ) and a user for commons ( and I
hope Avalon ) components.
Costin
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>
> > For released components, or code used in a different subproject release,
> > it seems to me that you can have Agora-style development using the Commons
> > workspace as proposed. Which specific parts of the proposal lead you to
> > believe that this is not the case?
>
>
> The difference between commons and sandbox is that sandbox is open to all
> jakarta projects and commiters.
>
> The commons are using the same model as Avalon or any other jakarta
> project - with a set of existing commiters aproving new memebers and
> controling the component. And this doesn't seem to work well for projects
> and sharing - I haven't seen too many projects moving code out of their
> workspace and into avalon for example. I'm sure Avalon people are as open
> as "commons", and will accept code and contributions that follow their
> rules.
>
> The agora uses different rules - the projects have control over the code
> they place there and they share it with other projects who decide to use
> the component. Both projects will monitor and maintain the component -
> without a "producer-consumer" relation.
>
>
> > If I believe that my component (currently part of my favorite
> > subproject) is potentially reusable, and others agree, I'm going to
> > propose it for Commons. Assuming acceptance -- and that's mostly
> > concerned with things like not dragging along dependencies on frameworks
> > that hinder reusability -- I, and the other committers who want to share
> > this component, will be the maintainers of record in the status file
> > (point 15).
>
> It's a valid action.
>
> What I would like to do is:
> If my component is reusable and others agree, I will share it with other
> projects in the agora workspace. By placing it in the agora workspace I
> agree that other projects who decide to use the components will have the
> same rights as me over the component. And I can also look at other
> components and if I find something that I need I can use it - knowing that
> I will have the same control over the component shared by another project
> as the original source. That would allow other components to have trust
> in the component I am sharing, and know that they are co-maintainers and
> don't risk that I'll make changes that will affect them later. And will
> allow me to trust components that I want to use, without risking that the
> original commiters will do changes that will affect me.
>
> Please don't tell me that the maintainers of a piece of code will preserve
> backward compatiblity - remember XmlMapper :-)
>
> Of course, I may use components from "commons" if they are stable and
> boring ( i.e. no active development happens ) - and hope the maintainers
> will not brake my code.
>
> Note that agora doesn't require active contributions to a component in
> order to have a vote ( the veto that matters when the active contributors
> are braking my code ). And that's the difference between the 2 workspaces.
>
>
> Eventually, if other projects decide to trust me and the component and
> start using it, we may need to have separate releases of the component -
> so users of jakarta-foo-7.0 and jakarta-bar-11.0 can upgrade and treat the
> component as a separate entity in both projects. But I don't want to have
> to "close" my component by moving it into commons.
>
> > If this is all according to the rules of Commons, where does it say,
> > specifically, that you cannot have the development style you like? Or,
> > where does it *not* say something that would prevent the kind of
> > interference you are worried about?
>
> The development style for components in commons is what I don't trust. I
> don't think it'll provide enough guarantees for projects who want to
> reuse. I like the style in agora/sandbox - where review is shared and
> projects have control over what they use, if they need to.
>
> Costin
>
