Peter Donald wrote:
> I would hope Avalon people are *more* open than commons ;) Any project that
> starts dictating "religious" requirements liks code formatting/structure
> etc is bound to be more of a cathedral. A free for all where the only
> forced "standard" is versioning and distribution scheme will see a much
> better bazaar. SUre it may contain some crap but eventually the best would
> bubble to the top.
Good point. We should clearly justify any requirements for code format.
"23. Like all Jakarta subprojects, we adopt the Code Conventions for the
Java Programming Language as published by Sun. In addition, we specify
that indentation should be constructed using spaces, not tabs, so that
CVS commit messages format correctly when sent by email."
The actual package requirements are:
"3. Each package must have a clearly defined purpose, scope, and API --
Do one thing well, and keep your contracts."
"4.2. Each package must clearly specify any external dependencies,
including any other Commons packages, and the earliest JDK version
required."
"4.2.2. All necessary dependencies must be recorded in the MANIFEST.MF
file of the package JAR, in the manner recommended in the JDK 1.3
documentation describing "system extensions".
"4.3 Each package must maintain a list of its active committers in its
status file."
In terms of package construction, everything else is "optional but
recommended."
-Ted.
"I am sure they are sour," said the fox.
http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/cgi/aesop1.cgi?2&TheFoxandtheGrapes2
