On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Brian Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was actually just going to suggest that they simply be separate > artifacts, > > not anything as involved as the "sub-projects" under jakarta and the like. > > +1. The gadget container and gadget rendering server are joined at > the hip, it makes sense to have them both under the shindig umbrella. >
+1 with having them as separate artifacts. Re: the comparison with jakarta, I was not implying moving code out of shindig, just explaining why there is a cultural bias against making too many separate departments in the same project. If subprojects are created, they would be kept here. The use case of Chris is closer to give some trouble in this regard: Developing a full fledged container, with "concrete" implementation of the APIs, is beginning to have a non-100% overlap with the shindig charter. Further, a number of people involved in shindig are maintaining private (or at least "uninteresting" for outsiders) interfaces to their systems, so they would not likely be interested at all in having a sample implementation, ... I guess that, for the moment, the approach that Chris has taken, i.e. open an outside project and see who joins, is the best. We can consider getting the code back into Apache as needed in the near future. Regards Santiago
