Martin,
Jakarta is
Components
Sandbox
Things move from sandbox to components.
That would be fine if there was a well-defined scope for the sandbox.
Should be the same as the scope for Jakarta. Define that, and you may have
your answer.
--- Noel
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 19:19 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Then there is no NEED for a sandbox.
As you know, the sandbox predates the Incubator, and AIUI, the Sandbox
exists so as to allow experiments without polluting the respository in such
manner that would
contains potential Commons components, Jakarta
Sandbox would be much the same but contain potential Jakarta components.
Maybe I'm jumping the gun.
Call me ignorant but that sounds like the incubator without incubation
process.
If you want to know about sandboxes, ask the Turbine people. We have
had
Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.
the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were
entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal
existence
one but call it
scratchpad) for POI-related stuff. However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.
the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were
entrusted
not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it
scratchpad) for POI-related stuff. However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.
the sandbox already exists
an
HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff.
I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it
scratchpad) for POI-related stuff. However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you
want
to start a whole NEW project
However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.
Why on sourceforge - why not on our infrastructure?
What the difference for you?
You want every tiny (commons) library go
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote:
However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO. If you want
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.
Why on sourceforge - why not on our infrastructure?
What the difference for you?
You
Why? Do you need something to do? I have many unworked open source
tasks that I could pass on. I'm happy to help you along on them.
Seriously.
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote:
However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox
y
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
-1 on these points
1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator. All new
projects must go through the incubator and endure. Commons sandbox was
created
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Nathan Bubna wrote:
On 4/8/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
-1 on these points
1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator. All
new projects must go through the
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 00:51 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Simon Kitching wrote:
And who is expected to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Those who want to? :)
I imagine those working on sandbox components at the moment, plus a
handful of people who tend to subscribe to
So basically if I call my project a component I don't have to go
through the incubator just YOUR
incubator.
Nope, poor explanation on my part. Code created within the Apache
community does not have to go through the incubator at all. The only bit
component refers to is related to Martin's
On 4/9/06, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Ideally, a sandbox project should be adopted by its closest living
relative, and use that project's list until it grows up. This
[EMAIL PROTECTED] idea looks more like a communal orphanage to me...
Of course if a big bunch of people
* Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
sandbox-dev@ ?
Otherwise, fine.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator.
All new projects must go through the incubator and endure.
ACO's gratuitously snarky comments aside, projects coming into the ASF go
through the Incubator. New things started entirely within the ASF do not,
currently.
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 10:20 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
snip
Totally NOT how the incubator was described to me. As I understand it
if Tomcat (for instance) wants to create a new JSP engine, that's kosher
for Tomcat. However if someone in POI wanted to create a new AI engine
(having
Based on that what WOULD BE out of scope of today's commons or this
MEGA-sandbox or this JCL or whatever?
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 10:20 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
snip
Totally NOT how the incubator was described to me. As I understand it
if Tomcat (for
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
projects coming into the ASF go through the Incubator. New things
started entirely within the ASF do not, currently.
Then there is no NEED for a sandbox.
As you know, the sandbox predates the Incubator, and AIUI, the Sandbox
exists so as to
Yes. A lot of things predate the incubator. I'm not opposed to say an
HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff.
I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it
scratchpad) for POI-related stuff. However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS. Go have a scopeless sandbox
:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:28 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox
Am Freitag, den 07.04.2006, 19:17 -0400 schrieb Henri Yandell:
Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
* Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
-1 on these points
1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator. All new
projects must go through the incubator and endure. Commons sandbox was
created prior to the incubator.
Nope, all new communities must go through the
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Rainer Klute wrote:
Am Freitag, den 07.04.2006, 19:17 -0400 schrieb Henri Yandell:
Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
* Create
On 4/8/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
-1 on these points
1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator. All
new projects must go through the incubator and endure. Commons
sandbox
Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
* Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
* Create wiki (and migrate wiki bits from j-c-s/j-t-s)
* Jakarta Sandbox
On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
* Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
* Create wiki
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:28 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
* Create development mailing
On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:28 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs
On 3/23/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 15:51 -0300, Felipe Leme wrote:
Hi Rahul (and others),
First of all, sorry for the delay (but as they say here Better later
than never :-)
snip/
Thanks for the update.
Still, I think it worths to create
On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 15:51 -0300, Felipe Leme wrote:
Hi Rahul (and others),
First of all, sorry for the delay (but as they say here Better later
than never :-)
+1
Still, I think it worths to create a separate sub-project for the Standard
Taglibs - even if it's DOA on activity, it's
Hi Rahul (and others),
First of all, sorry for the delay (but as they say here Better later
than never :-)
No, I haven't heard from Pierre and I guess he haven't heard from his
managers (as normally he is quick on answer such issues).
My feeling is that Sun will not put any efforts on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Since those Java Language Components have some kind of Core nature, I think
of something solid ... what about
Jakarta Rocks
8-) This is great!
- - Chris
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with
Hola,
Both Rocks and Syllables are a great suggestion ;)
I disagee that a 1-word name implies TLP: just look at our current
projects for many counter-examples. Most things under WS are 1-word
where the TLP itself is two words, and WS is not a unique TLP in that
respect. The inverse is also
Jakarta Rocks Betwixt (ignoring that the ones for JLC have boring names)
Do we really need 3 catchy terms?
From my point of view, the part that fancy names misses is that these are
not subprojects, they are just component groupings to make email and the
website easier to grasp.
This does
Good points... I guess we can wait with the fancy names until these
Jakarta X Component groupings become their own TLPs... Remember the
Rocks ;)
Y
On 3/8/06, sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/03/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jakarta Rocks Betwixt (ignoring that the ones for
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 16:54 +, sebb wrote:
I'd much prefer something like
Jakarta Lang[uage] Components
Jakarta Web Components
etc
I then have some idea what each contains, with having to remember that
Bogart means Language, and Bacall means Web etc.
Otherwise, we might as well
From the initial email in this thread:
On 3/6/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Additionally we have Jakarta Web Components, which will take on various
bits - including Jakarta Taglibs (can't recall if the Standard Taglib
would go in there or not).
snap/
No, AFAICT. Did you /
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
+1 -- its time to establish that there are two equally useful pieces
here, with differing API styles, differing thresholds for involvement
and therefore, potentially attracting differing audiences
Hola,
On 3/6/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over on Commons-Dev, Stephen has suggested that we split some of the
components out to form a Jakarta Language Components group. Consensus
is in favour of the idea, so I'm sure we'll see a vote on that and some
movement soon.
Commons
Yoav Shapira wrote on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:47 PM:
Hola,
On 3/6/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Over on Commons-Dev, Stephen has suggested that we split some of the
components out to form a Jakarta Language Components group. Consensus
is in favour of the idea, so I'm
Hola,
Yoav (who still bristles at the name Jakarta X Components -- we need
to get creative!)
Jakarta Core Components/Pills/Marbles/Gems/Diamonds
Jakarta Web Components/Pills/Marbles/Gems/Diamonds
Gems would be a particularly interesting choice in light of the Ruby
use of the term ;)
I'm
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
Yoav (who still bristles at the name Jakarta X Components -- we need
to get creative!)
Jakarta Core Components/Pills/Marbles/Gems/Diamonds
Jakarta Web Components/Pills/Marbles/Gems/Diamonds
Gems would be a particularly interesting choice in
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
+1 -- its time to establish that there are two equally useful pieces
here, with differing API styles, differing thresholds for involvement
and therefore,
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
snip/
I hope to help in dealing with roC.
Yep, that's my chief point on the thirty four pieces, not two pieces - the
roC still needs solutions. Yet more where we should be thinking about our
I'm a few hours beind in this thread but...
I like the idea of a Jakarta sandbox. Maybe we could put a page on the
Jakarta web site with a few paragraphs explaining purpose and criteria. My
impression is that this is an informal way to start exploring a new project
or codebase - is that right
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
snip/
I hope to help in dealing with roC.
Yep, that's my chief point on the thirty four pieces, not two pieces - the
roC still needs solutions. Yet more
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Hola,
Yoav (who still bristles at the name Jakarta X Components -- we need
to get creative!)
Jakarta Core Components/Pills/Marbles/Gems/Diamonds
Jakarta Web Components/Pills/Marbles/Gems/Diamonds
Gems would be a particularly interesting choice in light of the Ruby
Hi,
Since those Java Language Components have some kind of Core nature, I think
of something solid ... what about
Cool!
Yoav
--
Yoav Shapira
Senior Architect
Nimalex LLC
1 Mifflin Place, Suite 310
Cambridge, MA, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / www.yoavshapira.com
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Will Glass-Husain wrote:
I'm a few hours beind in this thread but...
I like the idea of a Jakarta sandbox. Maybe we could put a page on the
Jakarta web site with a few paragraphs explaining purpose and criteria. My
impression is that this is an informal way to start
Personally I think that commons is a bit TOO open. I'm not sure the
Java world can suffer another project designed to throw us into circular
dependency hell. These little mini-component projects that all depend
on each other combined with the inherent crappiness of Java classloading
(.NET
I think there's pretty much wide-spread agreement to the pain of that
issue, in and out of Commons.
Stephen's suggestion for the JLC ones are that they would not have any
dependencies (currently they don't).
The 'deep end' stuff tends to depend on these, ie) there will be far more
roC-JLC
Henri Yandell wrote:
I think there's pretty much wide-spread agreement to the pain of that
issue, in and out of Commons.
Stephen's suggestion for the JLC ones are that they would not have any
dependencies (currently they don't).
The 'deep end' stuff tends to depend on these, ie) there
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
snip/
I expressed a similar opinion in response to the JLC proposal on
commons-dev. Given that we're in this mess with intermingling threads
on commons-dev@ and general@, forgive me for
as well.
Lastly we have Jakarta HTTP Components - formerly Commons HttpClient -
which technically lost access to its sandbox - though I suspect it's been
a long time since it used it.
To that end, I'd like to propose that Commons Sandbox and Taglibs Sandbox
merge into Jakarta Sandbox
- formerly Commons HttpClient - which
technically lost access to its sandbox - though I suspect it's been a long
time since it used it.
To that end, I'd like to propose that Commons Sandbox and Taglibs Sandbox
merge into Jakarta Sandbox - servicing all of Jakarta - though I imagine it
would
that Commons Sandbox and Taglibs Sandbox
merge into Jakarta Sandbox - servicing all of Jakarta - though I imagine
it would mostly be the component groupings.
Thoughts?
I presume that a commons committer would have commit access to both
old commons and Language Components? Having a separate commit
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 22:42 -0500, Henri Yandell wrote:
To that end, I'd like to propose that Commons Sandbox and Taglibs Sandbox
merge into Jakarta Sandbox - servicing all of Jakarta - though I imagine
it would mostly be the component groupings
that, what *is* a sandbox exactly?
snap/
IMO, this is a good point. Its like going to grad school, if you
expect to graduate, at some point you must declare a major (sorry
about the analogy, I'm aware they rarely work ;-). So unclear how this
will play out in a Jakarta sandbox. Concretely speaking
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
+1 -- its time to establish that there are two equally useful pieces
here, with differing API styles, differing thresholds for involvement
and therefore, potentially attracting differing audiences (at the user
and developer level). The more shared
62 matches
Mail list logo
