Scope, WAS: RE: Naming issues

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@generationjava.com]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 16:30

[...]
>>>> no, forcing multi-language implementation is 'way off the radar, and
>>>> destry-on-sight as a concept.  having a place where non-java stuff can
>>>> live alongside java *is* in scope and one of the goals.
>>>
>>> It's in scope until the scope is defined though. Currently joining Apache
>>> Commons is akin to using proprietary s/w, no clue which direction it's
>>> going to go right now.
>>
>> This is a bit harsh don't you think.  If you look at the STATUS file
>> and the resolution that was passed by the Board you should at least get
>> some general sense of the direction we wish to take Commons.
> 
> It's a bit bombastic I agree, but is only really covered by the weakly
> defined 'language-agnostic' bit.

But the issues being voted on should at least give you some sense
of direction.  Don't you agree?

> Interesting that the resolution makes no mention of server-side
> functionality.

Why should it?  Commons is about reusable components (and maybe even
tools), not restricted to server-side.

Sander

Re: Scope, WAS: RE: Naming issues

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Sander Striker wrote:

> > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@generationjava.com]
> > Sent: 21 October 2002 16:30
>
> [...]
> >>>> no, forcing multi-language implementation is 'way off the radar, and
> >>>> destry-on-sight as a concept.  having a place where non-java stuff can
> >>>> live alongside java *is* in scope and one of the goals.
> >>>
> >>> It's in scope until the scope is defined though. Currently joining Apache
> >>> Commons is akin to using proprietary s/w, no clue which direction it's
> >>> going to go right now.
> >>
> >> This is a bit harsh don't you think.  If you look at the STATUS file
> >> and the resolution that was passed by the Board you should at least get
> >> some general sense of the direction we wish to take Commons.
> >
> > It's a bit bombastic I agree, but is only really covered by the weakly
> > defined 'language-agnostic' bit.
>
> But the issues being voted on should at least give you some sense
> of direction.  Don't you agree?

It doesn't seem to have been tackled yet. If Ant moves to Commons and
Nant is offered to Apache, how would that be handled? [.Net Ant].

I agree that I wouldn't expect such a direction to ever be taken, but fear
of change is a good stereotype sometimes and it's intended as an extreme
example.

Taking an example from below, if I propose a Commons-AWT, will it the name
be vetoed because it is too language specific? Would I have to call it
Commons-GUI. If so, would I then find that when a Commons-GNOME is
proposed, that it somehow becomes a sibling of the Commons-GUI[AWT] and
that the Commons-GUI project has to worry about integrating the
Commons-GNOME project etc.

If Jakarta-Commons-Lang move over to Commons, will we have to be concerned
with other languages Lang componetns and somehow modify ourselves to fit
them, in terms of documetnation, website, cvs modules, build structure
etc. These are all weaker, but similar instances of the above example.

>
> > Interesting that the resolution makes no mention of server-side
> > functionality.
>
> Why should it?  Commons is about reusable components (and maybe even
> tools), not restricted to server-side.

I'd been under the impression that Apache still liked to focus on
server-side code and not GUI components. I'm +1 on having Apache reusable
projects that extend to other areas though. It'd be nice to have a
Commons-AWT and a Commons-Swing.

Hen