You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@commons.apache.org by Bjørn Anders Ulsund <ba...@online.no> on 2003/01/29 19:02:20 UTC
Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
I just have one simple question that I couldn't find the answer to on the
Apache Commons Project-page.
Is the Apache Commons Project the Jakarta Commons that has been promoted from
being a Jakarta sub-project to a top-level project or are they two separate
projects?
Bjorn
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
They are seperate projects.
Mvgr,
Martin
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 19:02, Bj=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=F8rn?= Anders Ulsund
wrote:
> I just have one simple question that I couldn't find the answer to on the
> Apache Commons Project-page.
>
> Is the Apache Commons Project the Jakarta Commons that has been promoted from
> being a Jakarta sub-project to a top-level project or are they two separate
> projects?
>
> Bjorn
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Friday, June 6, 2003 5:02 PM +0200 Nicola Ken Barozzi
<ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> My very simple common-sense brain keeps asking... what are we waiting to
> simply promote Jakarta Commons to project status and make *that* the
> commons.apache.org project?
>
> They have the active people, the tried and tested rules, the activity, the
> projects, the will, the time, to make Commons really thrive as a project.
>
> Why is this not pursued?
We have offered them to move to this ASF commons, but they (IIRC, Costin was
the most vocal opponent) adamantly refused to have anything to do with the ASF
top-level commons and wanted to stay within the protection of the Jakarta PMC.
*This* commons is not about language-specific code. Jakarta commons is only
about Java code. Therefore, for the goals others have in mind (such as
myself), the Jakarta commons isn't large enough in scope to do what we want it
to do.
If any Jakarta commons project wished to move over here, I'd be a very big +1
as a PMC member.
Note that Greg and I have discussed moving serf over fairly soon. We'll
probably do that in a few weeks, but there's a technical thing we need to
fix/implement in Subversion first. -- justin
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On Saturday, June 7, 2003, at 04:44 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
<snip>
> Jakarta has a lot of things in its sandbox (and so does XML) that I would
> consider violates its original charter. But, that doesn't work for all
> ASF projects and their PMCs. -- justin
the problem is interpreting what server-side solutions really means. if
jakarta had been charged with creating services then a lot of items in
jakarta (as well as the sandbox) would be out of scope. server-side java
solutions is a very wide area of scope - most java developers spend of
their time working on server-side java.
jakarta has had a tough time in drawing a line - but these issues have
been debated at length. jakarta has been very conservative in accepting
new subprojects - it's been very hard to get a new sub-project accepted.
but it's very hard to tell someone that a particular idea violates the
charter when they come up with a compelling argument why developers
working on server-side java need it. so in the end, the interpretation
settle on was pretty much the only logical and reasonable one - that any
code for which a compelling argument could be made for usage in
server-side java development was in scope.
unlike other languages, java lacks a solid body of library code. in order
to develop server-side solutions, a large quantity of utility code has had
to be developed from scratch. it's very hard to see how code is in-scope
when it's distributed as part of an existing subproject but out of scope
when it's distributed by itself. for example, digester originated in the
tomcat code base. it's hard to see how the same code can be in-scope when
it's in tomcat and out-of-scope when it's in jakarta-commons.
when viewed from the perspective of the working interpretation of scope
commonly used by jakarta, i've taken a quick look and all the components i
can see fall within the working definition of scope used by jakarta.
- robert
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Saturday, June 7, 2003 11:27 AM +0200 Nicola Ken Barozzi
<ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not having used a sandbox is not a good reason IMHO to dismiss the concept.
> Overmore, sandboxes are not made to expand beyond charters. They are there
> to experiment new ideas while still staying in scope of the original charter.
I think you're missing the point. I can't experiment in anything outside of
the mission charters in the projects I'm involved with. That means that if it
doesn't relate to being an HTTP Server or directly to a portable runtime, I
have no home for it within the ASF. For example, both the HTTP Server PMC and
the APR PMC have decided that an HTTP client is not in scope for it - hence
serf is a nomad looking for a home.
Jakarta has a lot of things in its sandbox (and so does XML) that I would
consider violates its original charter. But, that doesn't work for all ASF
projects and their PMCs. -- justin
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote, On 07/06/2003 0.46:
> --On Friday, June 6, 2003 8:23 PM +0200 Nicola Ken Barozzi
> <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Let me explain.
>>
>> - Jakarta has Jakarta Commons.
>> - Xml has xml-commons.
>> - DB has db-commons.
>> - Almost all projects I know of have a sandbox/scrathpad.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> It seems that Sam is right, locality is important.
>
>
> None of the projects I'm involved with have a sandbox, nor will their
> PMCs support any sandboxes as furthering their mission as they have very
> focused charters and don't wish to expand beyond their charters. -- justin
Not having used a sandbox is not a good reason IMHO to dismiss the
concept. Overmore, sandboxes are not made to expand beyond charters.
They are there to experiment new ideas while still staying in scope of
the original charter.
As for the commons, they are a very nice way of refactoring parts that
are common to subprojects in a single place, to favor reuse and
collaboration accross subprojects. I have seen them work well.
Anyway, I still don't understand what Apache Commons is about. Scott
says he wants it to succeede... in what?
I guess I'll still have to wait and see.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Friday, June 6, 2003 8:23 PM +0200 Nicola Ken Barozzi
<ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> Let me explain.
>
> - Jakarta has Jakarta Commons.
> - Xml has xml-commons.
> - DB has db-commons.
> - Almost all projects I know of have a sandbox/scrathpad.
>
> Why?
>
> It seems that Sam is right, locality is important.
None of the projects I'm involved with have a sandbox, nor will their PMCs
support any sandboxes as furthering their mission as they have very focused
charters and don't wish to expand beyond their charters. -- justin
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote, On 06/06/2003 18.54:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
>> Why is this not pursued?
>
>
> IMHO, things need some focus in order to avoid becoming unbounded, like
> sourceforge. Keeping Jakarta commons to small reusable components that
> actually are used by Jakarta projects seems to provide the right level
> of focus.
I agree. Hence IMHO Commons should do the same.
> There also is a notion of 'closeness' that I think is relevant. Does
> your community have a park? Mine does. I think the nature of the
> location would change if it were made a national park.
Hmmm... In what sense?
> Or perhaps it simply is inertia. As you point out, Jakarta commons
> appears to be working.
IMHO it simply _works_.
Imagine that this Commons does not exists. Imagine that the existing
Jakarta Commons becomes a TLP with it's PMCers. Imagine that current
Apache Commons PMCers are elected after that... and you have an idea of
what I feel, that is "build on what works", which is JC.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote, On 06/06/2003 17.52:
> We have offered them to move to this ASF commons, but they (IIRC,
> Costin was the most vocal opponent) adamantly refused to have anything to do
> with the ASF top-level commons and wanted to stay within the protection
> of the Jakarta PMC.
But if this PMC accepts all the guys from JC? This would only work IMHO
is JC was able to continue to self-asses itself as it has always done.
> *This* commons is not about language-specific code. Jakarta commons is
> only about Java code. Therefore, for the goals others have in mind
> (such as myself), the Jakarta commons isn't large enough in scope to do
> what we want it to do.
Put Jakarta Commons as Commons. Exactly same committer, exactly same
PMCers. Hey, now you can come in. It's the opposite IMHO that scares and
brings FUD over how the project will be managed.
Keep in mind that Jakarta Commons had already expressed that they wanted
that any ASF committer had access to the sandbox.
It's wierd, given that many say a sandbox isn't needed ;-)
> If any Jakarta commons project wished to move over here, I'd be a very
> big +1 as a PMC member.
>
> Note that Greg and I have discussed moving serf over fairly soon. We'll
> probably do that in a few weeks, but there's a technical thing we need
> to fix/implement in Subversion first. -- justin
Ok, but the problem will remain.
First of all, there is a big question if Commons is really needed with
the actual mission. What *need* does Apache Commons solve that other
Commons cannot?
Let me explain.
- Jakarta has Jakarta Commons.
- Xml has xml-commons.
- DB has db-commons.
- Almost all projects I know of have a sandbox/scrathpad.
Why?
It seems that Sam is right, locality is important.
Hmmm... but if this is right? If Jakarta will keep its Commons, if Xml
will keep its commons, if DB will keep its commons... what will Apache
Commons be?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On Friday, June 6, 2003, at 05:54 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> It's since 31/1/2003 that there has been no real activity on this list.
>> This is IMHO the most interesting part of it:
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Apache Commons project was definitely inspired by the Jakarta
>>>> Commons project, and aims to be the preferred home for old and new
>>>> Jakarta Commons projects both in terms of cross-project Java
>>>> development
>>>> and cross-language projects.
>>>>
>>>> -aaron
>> My very simple common-sense brain keeps asking... what are we waiting to
>> simply promote Jakarta Commons to project status and make *that* the
>> commons.apache.org project?
>> They have the active people, the tried and tested rules, the activity,
>> the projects, the will, the time, to make Commons really thrive as a
>> project.
>> Why is this not pursued?
>
> IMHO, things need some focus in order to avoid becoming unbounded, like
> sourceforge. Keeping Jakarta commons to small reusable components that
> actually are used by Jakarta projects seems to provide the right level of
> focus.
>
> There also is a notion of 'closeness' that I think is relevant. Does
> your community have a park? Mine does. I think the nature of the
> location would change if it were made a national park.
>
> Or perhaps it simply is inertia. As you point out, Jakarta commons
> appears to be working.
IMHO both are important factors.
the tightness of the jakarta-commons scope has definitely helped. better
components have been created because the components are expected to be
tightly scoped and reusable. these rules have been a success and so people
are loathed to change them.
jakarta-commons is on the creative cusp between working and not-working.
as an insider, we continually have problems with having too many
developers but too few committers and too many components with too little
infrastructure. but people seem to like it this way. jakarta-commons is
really like a bizaar with lots of components all crammed in closely
together with lots of people wandering through. everyone say's it's far
too busy but no one wants to leave. this creates a lot of inertia.
i have another reason to add to sam's. a change like this would require
enough jakarta-commons committers with enough energy to kick start the
commons project and make the change a success. i'm not sure that this
energy exists within jakarta-commons. at the moment, it's hard enough
supervising jakarta-commons and jakarta-commons-sandbox without having to
extend the responsibility to a lot of new components written in different
languages.
i also would like to see the commons-project prosper but i don't have the
energy to make it happen. i think that many other jakarta-commons
committers probably feel the same.
- robert
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> It's since 31/1/2003 that there has been no real activity on this list.
>
> This is IMHO the most interesting part of it:
> ...
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>>
>>> The Apache Commons project was definitely inspired by the Jakarta
>>> Commons project, and aims to be the preferred home for old and new
>>> Jakarta Commons projects both in terms of cross-project Java development
>>> and cross-language projects.
>>>
>>> -aaron
>
> My very simple common-sense brain keeps asking... what are we waiting to
> simply promote Jakarta Commons to project status and make *that* the
> commons.apache.org project?
>
> They have the active people, the tried and tested rules, the activity,
> the projects, the will, the time, to make Commons really thrive as a
> project.
>
> Why is this not pursued?
IMHO, things need some focus in order to avoid becoming unbounded, like
sourceforge. Keeping Jakarta commons to small reusable components that
actually are used by Jakarta projects seems to provide the right level
of focus.
There also is a notion of 'closeness' that I think is relevant. Does
your community have a park? Mine does. I think the nature of the
location would change if it were made a national park.
Or perhaps it simply is inertia. As you point out, Jakarta commons
appears to be working.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
It's since 31/1/2003 that there has been no real activity on this list.
This is IMHO the most interesting part of it:
...
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
>
>>The Apache Commons project was definitely inspired by the Jakarta
>>Commons project, and aims to be the preferred home for old and new
>>Jakarta Commons projects both in terms of cross-project Java development
>>and cross-language projects.
>>
>>-aaron
My very simple common-sense brain keeps asking... what are we waiting to
simply promote Jakarta Commons to project status and make *that* the
commons.apache.org project?
They have the active people, the tried and tested rules, the activity,
the projects, the will, the time, to make Commons really thrive as a
project.
Why is this not pursued?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
[Just to take a stab at a Jakarta Commons response, from the conversations
that occured when Apache Commons was created.]
While Apache Commons was definitely inspired by the Jakarta Commons
project, there has been no word from the board of directors that Jakarta
Commons projects must move to Apache Commons, and no Jakarta Commons
project has made a move towards the Apache Commons project.
Indeed, I'm not even sure if any form of decision has been made on how a
Jakarta Commons project is supposed to decide to move [as all Commons
developers could have voting rights].
Currently Jakarta Commons projects are going about business as normal and
many committers are listening to the Apache Commons mail list so as to try
to ensure that movement from Jakarta Commons to Apache Commons, if it
should happen, is as unchanging in environment and style as possible.
Currently Apache Commons and Jakarta Commons are two separate entities,
with only listeners to the mail list and Geir Magnusson Jr. on the PMC in
common.
Sorry I didn't have a simple answer to your simple question :) Maybe the
Apache Commons site needs to try and make this clear on their FAQ.
Hen
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> The Apache Commons project was definitely inspired by the Jakarta
> Commons project, and aims to be the preferred home for old and new
> Jakarta Commons projects both in terms of cross-project Java development
> and cross-language projects.
>
> -aaron
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:02 AM, Bj�rn Anders Ulsund wrote:
>
> > I just have one simple question that I couldn't find the answer to on
> > the
> > Apache Commons Project-page.
> >
> > Is the Apache Commons Project the Jakarta Commons that has been
> > promoted from
> > being a Jakarta sub-project to a top-level project or are they two
> > separate
> > projects?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: Apache Commons Project vs The Jakarta Commons
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
The Apache Commons project was definitely inspired by the Jakarta
Commons project, and aims to be the preferred home for old and new
Jakarta Commons projects both in terms of cross-project Java development
and cross-language projects.
-aaron
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:02 AM, Bjørn Anders Ulsund wrote:
> I just have one simple question that I couldn't find the answer to on
> the
> Apache Commons Project-page.
>
> Is the Apache Commons Project the Jakarta Commons that has been
> promoted from
> being a Jakarta sub-project to a top-level project or are they two
> separate
> projects?