You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@commons.apache.org by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org> on 2002/10/19 00:50:37 UTC
Re: Naming issues
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:07, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > If not, can they still use the name 'commons' ? ( like
> > commons-logging, etc ).
>
> since it is compartmentalised under jakarta, mho is 'yes'.
The one problem (at least in java land) is that classes are usually namespaced
in reverse DNS order. ie
org.apache.commons.X
which will clash with jakarta commons. Apache.com does not seem to do java
development work so it may be the case where we can move to
apache.commons.X
for the Apache commons - thus sidestepping namespace issues. Not sure though.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
--------------------------------------------------
Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence...
--------------------------------------------------
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 08:51, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Actually I don't see the problem, since Jakarta Commons is about common
>>Java code, and commons is about common java code...
>>
>>Some projects will migrate before, some later, some never, but I'm sure
>>overlap will not be necessary, as the proposed *bleah* solution ;-P
>
>
> It has nothing to do with migration or non-migration. The problem will be name
> clashes. What happens when we migrate large chunks of the Excalibur
> codebase(s) over. Who gets the "CLI" name or whatever? Even if we mangle
> names we will still have a problem in the future - ie what happens when
> jakarta-commons accepts a "beanbag" component and Apache Commons already has
> one?
Yeah, you're right, I'm too optimistic :-/
> We don't want to have to deal with coliisions in released and we don't want to
> have to worry about "claim" jumping.
I never remember that avoiding potential problems with egos floating
around is good... your involvement in previous collision discussions
that is now talking advises us well... you are right.
> Hence it would be better IMHO to have separate namespaces.
what about
org.apache.commons.*
org.apache.common.*
?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 08:51, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Actually I don't see the problem, since Jakarta Commons is about common
> Java code, and commons is about common java code...
>
> Some projects will migrate before, some later, some never, but I'm sure
> overlap will not be necessary, as the proposed *bleah* solution ;-P
It has nothing to do with migration or non-migration. The problem will be name
clashes. What happens when we migrate large chunks of the Excalibur
codebase(s) over. Who gets the "CLI" name or whatever? Even if we mangle
names we will still have a problem in the future - ie what happens when
jakarta-commons accepts a "beanbag" component and Apache Commons already has
one?
We don't want to have to deal with coliisions in released and we don't want to
have to worry about "claim" jumping.
Hence it would be better IMHO to have separate namespaces.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
------------------------------------
The two secrets to success:
1- Don't tell anyone everything.
------------------------------------
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> That's a good point, but I suspect that the new Commons won't be stealing
> the bottom-level names from Jakarta. For example, if...
>
> "org.apache.commons.Jfooness" is a Jakarta Commons project, then Commons
> will just have to be careful not to reuse that prefix.
the example brought up was regexp.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Brain fart (suggestion for apache-commons project)
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:01:16AM -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> One suggestion for a project should it suit someone that seems just apt
> for here (and I think there is an existing codebase on sourceforge) is
> language extensions/support for ant.
>
> For those of you not familiar with ant jakarta.apache.org/ant. Ant is a
> lot more pleasant to use than Makefiles. While its focus is Java
> currently, there is support for other languages being developed
> elsewhere. Hopefully one day it will be mostly out of the box.
>
> So you say "Gee I'm a C man...what does ant do for me"... ever paste a
> patch for a make file? Don't you love that "use tab not spaces"
> error... Ant is a painful build tool but about 99% less painful than
> make when it comes to non-simple things. C/C++/D could gain a lot from
> it!
Well, in the context of being language-agnostic, I don't think anyone
wants to be forced to make any contributions to the ASF. So my basic
philosophy on this topic comes down to this: If someone wants to do the
work, and it furthers our goals, then the ASF should help them do it. If
you want to write C-extensions to ant, and you think you'd like to do it
under the Commons project, I'm a huge +1 and I'll even help you get going.
Everything before that point is just speculation.
-aaron
RE: Brain fart (suggestion for apache-commons project)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:acoliver@apache.org]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 15:01
> One suggestion for a project should it suit someone that seems just apt
> for here (and I think there is an existing codebase on sourceforge) is
> language extensions/support for ant.
>
> For those of you not familiar with ant jakarta.apache.org/ant. Ant is a
> lot more pleasant to use than Makefiles. While its focus is Java
> currently, there is support for other languages being developed
> elsewhere. Hopefully one day it will be mostly out of the box.
>
> So you say "Gee I'm a C man...what does ant do for me"... ever paste a
> patch for a make file? Don't you love that "use tab not spaces"
> error... Ant is a painful build tool but about 99% less painful than
> make when it comes to non-simple things. C/C++/D could gain a lot from
> it!
We are aware of Ant. So much so that we used it as a _hypothetical_
candidate for hosting tools under the Commons umbrella. See the STATUS
file.
Sander
Brain fart (suggestion for apache-commons project)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
One suggestion for a project should it suit someone that seems just apt
for here (and I think there is an existing codebase on sourceforge) is
language extensions/support for ant.
For those of you not familiar with ant jakarta.apache.org/ant. Ant is a
lot more pleasant to use than Makefiles. While its focus is Java
currently, there is support for other languages being developed
elsewhere. Hopefully one day it will be mostly out of the box.
So you say "Gee I'm a C man...what does ant do for me"... ever paste a
patch for a make file? Don't you love that "use tab not spaces"
error... Ant is a painful build tool but about 99% less painful than
make when it comes to non-simple things. C/C++/D could gain a lot from
it!
-Andy
> 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.
> --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
> Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@commons.apache.org
>
--
http://www.superlinksoftware.com - software solutions for business
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document in
Java
http://krysalis.sourceforge.net/centipede - the best build/project
structure
a guy/gal could have! - Make Ant simple on complex Projects!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh
Re: Scope, WAS: RE: Naming issues
Posted by 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
Scope, WAS: RE: Naming issues
Posted by 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: Naming issues
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
> > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@generationjava.com]
> > Sent: 21 October 2002 15:44
>
> > Erm. Looks like Geir's the only candidate then. There needs to be some
> > overlap between Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons surely? I'm assuming
> > that Geir's very instrumental as he's the bridge and probably the one with
> > the most 'Commons' experience at Apache Commons?
> >
> > [Not checked to see who the APR member is and who the Xml-Commons member
> > is, but I assume that the Apache Commons board has a person from each]
>
> The entire PMC is in STATUS.
Yeah. Peter Donald is new since I last looked. No idea who does what
though, will have to go through the committer lists to figure it all out.
> > > > None of us are really going to budge at the moment if the chance still
> > > > exists that we join and then find out that some beaureacrat is demanding
> > > > that we release all our code in perl/c++ and tcl too. [a hypothetically
> > > > stupid situation]. I do however expect a lot of us to be listening in
> > > > though and try to help you get Apache-Commons/Java to the point of being
> > > > useful to Jakarta Commons, but I doubt any of us will commit.
> > >
> >> 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.
Interesting that the resolution makes no mention of server-side
functionality.
Hen
RE: Naming issues
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@generationjava.com]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 15:44
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > Henri Yandell wrote:
> > >
> > > Right now? Provide a good split-pane of the difference between Jakarta
> > > Commons and Apache Commons as far as the projects themselves are
> > > concerned.
> >
> > someone from j-c would need to provide that half..
>
> Erm. Looks like Geir's the only candidate then. There needs to be some
> overlap between Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons surely? I'm assuming
> that Geir's very instrumental as he's the bridge and probably the one with
> the most 'Commons' experience at Apache Commons?
>
> [Not checked to see who the APR member is and who the Xml-Commons member
> is, but I assume that the Apache Commons board has a person from each]
The entire PMC is in STATUS.
> > > I think we're all happy to sign-up, once we have a real understanding of
> > > what the contract says and what it's gonna mean.
> >
> > developing bylaws for the project is one of our first tasks.
> >
> > > None of us are really going to budge at the moment if the chance still
> > > exists that we join and then find out that some beaureacrat is demanding
> > > that we release all our code in perl/c++ and tcl too. [a hypothetically
> > > stupid situation]. I do however expect a lot of us to be listening in
> > > though and try to help you get Apache-Commons/Java to the point of being
> > > useful to Jakarta Commons, but I doubt any of us will commit.
> >
>> 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.
Sander
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> > Right now? Provide a good split-pane of the difference between Jakarta
> > Commons and Apache Commons as far as the projects themselves are
> > concerned.
>
> someone from j-c would need to provide that half..
Erm. Looks like Geir's the only candidate then. There needs to be some
overlap between Jakarta Commons and Apache Commons surely? I'm assuming
that Geir's very instrumental as he's the bridge and probably the one with
the most 'Commons' experience at Apache Commons?
[Not checked to see who the APR member is and who the Xml-Commons member
is, but I assume that the Apache Commons board has a person from each]
> > I think we're all happy to sign-up, once we have a real understanding of
> > what the contract says and what it's gonna mean.
>
> developing bylaws for the project is one of our first tasks.
>
> > None of us are really going to budge at the moment if the chance still
> > exists that we join and then find out that some beaureacrat is demanding
> > that we release all our code in perl/c++ and tcl too. [a hypothetically
> > stupid situation]. I do however expect a lot of us to be listening in
> > though and try to help you get Apache-Commons/Java to the point of being
> > useful to Jakarta Commons, but I doubt any of us will commit.
>
> 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.
Hen
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> Right now? Provide a good split-pane of the difference between Jakarta
> Commons and Apache Commons as far as the projects themselves are
> concerned.
someone from j-c would need to provide that half..
> I think we're all happy to sign-up, once we have a real understanding of
> what the contract says and what it's gonna mean.
developing bylaws for the project is one of our first tasks.
> None of us are really going to budge at the moment if the chance still
> exists that we join and then find out that some beaureacrat is demanding
> that we release all our code in perl/c++ and tcl too. [a hypothetically
> stupid situation]. I do however expect a lot of us to be listening in
> though and try to help you get Apache-Commons/Java to the point of being
> useful to Jakarta Commons, but I doubt any of us will commit.
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.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:17:51AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > The problem here is that jakarta-commons project names are intended to be
> > 'bland' (See the commons charter). Thus we have names such as lang,
> > collections, io. These are names that might equally apply to other
> > programming languages.
> >
> > My opinion is that putting code from different languages into the same CVS
> > is just going to hurt.
>
> Maybe it's more important to create a new Commons that is acceptable
> for full integration to/from the original Jakarta Commons, than
> to worry about namespace collisions. I tend to think that any
> namespace-collision-strategy that we come up with will be more confusing
> to our users, and I think the collaboration between the (successful)
> original group with the ASF-wide initiative would be very fruitful.
>
> What would it take to make these two groups into one?
Right now? Provide a good split-pane of the difference between Jakarta
Commons and Apache Commons as far as the projects themselves are
concerned.
Then hopefully, turn the negative parts of moving to Apache Commons into
positives, or at least show how they're less than the negatives of staying
at Jakarta Commons. Do some marketing :)
I think we're all happy to sign-up, once we have a real understanding of
what the contract says and what it's gonna mean.
One of the problems with this I figure is that Apache Commons is currently
a nothingness, just a term for a vague concept, so the first step is to
iron out what life will be like as a Java project in Apache Commons, then
do the above.
None of us are really going to budge at the moment if the chance still
exists that we join and then find out that some beaureacrat is demanding
that we release all our code in perl/c++ and tcl too. [a hypothetically
stupid situation]. I do however expect a lot of us to be listening in
though and try to help you get Apache-Commons/Java to the point of being
useful to Jakarta Commons, but I doubt any of us will commit.
Hen
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:17:51AM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> The problem here is that jakarta-commons project names are intended to be
> 'bland' (See the commons charter). Thus we have names such as lang,
> collections, io. These are names that might equally apply to other
> programming languages.
>
> My opinion is that putting code from different languages into the same CVS
> is just going to hurt.
Yes I see this point. I also see the point that both projects will have
to be aware of each other's name-space decisions at all times, which also
sucks.
Maybe it's more important to create a new Commons that is acceptable
for full integration to/from the original Jakarta Commons, than
to worry about namespace collisions. I tend to think that any
namespace-collision-strategy that we come up with will be more confusing
to our users, and I think the collaboration between the (successful)
original group with the ASF-wide initiative would be very fruitful.
What would it take to make these two groups into one?
-aaron
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 07:17:17PM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> > IMHO using
> >
> > org.apache.common.*
> >
> > is a possible solution.
>
> icky IMHO.
>
> I still prefer just going with
>
> apache.commons.*
Shouldn't we at least try to make these things real DNS entities?
Neither of these fit, unfortunately.
As I suggested before, I think it would be nice if this new project
tried to merge with the original Jakarta Commons. If you think this
is possible (or impossible), please reply and state why you think so.
> It makes more semantic sense to me and still avoids all namespace conflicts.
I agree, so let's make them all the same and not worry about it. :)
-aaron
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:53, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> I agree that what you say is the most sensible and correct way...
but ...
> The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
> Defining a different namespace will just make things easier, by avoiding
> stupid discussions like the one that is happening now, because there
> *are* people that just want to break balls as we say.
Never! Of course not. This has never happened before !
:)
> IMHO using
>
> org.apache.common.*
>
> is a possible solution.
icky IMHO.
I still prefer just going with
apache.commons.*
It makes more semantic sense to me and still avoids all namespace conflicts.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
He strains to hear a whisper who refuses to hear a shout.
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:05:36PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>>>The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
>>>
>>>Like we're seeing on reorg@.
>>
>>Then you've seen nothing yet ;-)
>
> Wait, you think that's normal?
Unfortunately it's way too common :-(
I don't think it's normal, and this is one of the reasons I *definately*
prefer to discuss things on XML rather than Jakarta because of this.
:-/
I have been bit quite a lot of times with these things, and this is the
reason I try to avoid them.
But I will certainly follow you if you and others decide to stand up
against these tensions, but ATM I'm not (yet) capable of making them
settle while remaining a minority.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:05:36PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>>>The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
>>>
>>>Like we're seeing on reorg@.
>>
>>Then you've seen nothing yet ;-)
>
> Wait, you think that's normal?
Unfortunately it's way too common :-(
I don't think it's normal, and this is one of the reasons I *definately*
prefer to discuss things on XML rather than Jakarta because of this.
:-/
I have been bit quite a lot of times with these things, and this is the
reason I try to avoid them.
But I will certainly follow you if you and others decide to stand up
against these tensions, but ATM I'm not (yet) capable of making them
settle while remaining a minority.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:05:36PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >>The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
> >
> >Like we're seeing on reorg@.
>
> Then you've seen nothing yet ;-)
Wait, you think that's normal?
-aaron
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:05:36PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >>The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
> >
> >Like we're seeing on reorg@.
>
> Then you've seen nothing yet ;-)
Wait, you think that's normal?
-aaron
Re: Naming issues
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
> >>The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
> >
> > Like we're seeing on reorg@.
>
> Then you've seen nothing yet ;-)
>
+1 :-)
I used to be deeply disturbed and upset by them.. Pier taught me to
accept them....
To note... on reorg out of the flames came a great compromise proposal!
It addressed all of our concerns. I'm sure there will be more hashing
it out, but its good!
-Andy
--
http://www.superlinksoftware.com - software solutions for business
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document in
Java
http://krysalis.sourceforge.net/centipede - the best build/project
structure
a guy/gal could have! - Make Ant simple on complex Projects!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>
>>dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
>>
>>>>>Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
>>>>>But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
>>>>
>>>>It's completely impractical, and will hurt Jakarta immensely.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, well, now that I think of it, this is only for projects that have
>>>>already been released...
>>>>
>>>>Other opinions?
>>>
>>>Has everyone forgotten that it's not just commons that uses
>>>org.apache.<projectName> as their java package name within Jakarta.
>>>
>>>>Ant is org.apache.tools.ant
>>>
>>>Turbine is org.apache.turbine
>>>Velocity is org.apache.velocity
>>>Struts is org.apache.struts
>>>etc.
>>
>>Sure, and Turbine will get a turbine.apache.org site, Ant an
>>ant.apache.org site... but Commons?
>
> Bear in mind this is not just a website change. It breaks backwards
> compatibility of all jakarta projects [at least ones people code against]
> and will be confusing to users.
Exactly what I said ;-)
Citing myself: "It's completely impractical, and will hurt Jakarta
immensely."
I wanted to highlight how following the other projects in the migration
would effectively look like all code from Jakarta Commons should go into
Apache Commons... hinting that instead of changing packagenames we could
change project. A provocation, but still a possibility.
>>Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
>>the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
>
>
> Some of the Sandbox ones are blatant Commons projects which just aren't
> ready yet. I know that this is probably acceptable to the Incubator
> concept but wanted to make sure.
Yes, in fact I'm ready to move to incubator the code of Morphos, which
has some interested developers, two semi-active developers and no
community yet.
> Equally, when does something go from Incubator to Commons? In Jakarta it
> seems to be on release of a 1.0. Do things have to stay in Incubator until
> they have a 1.0 release?
When the community is deemed to be ready, that is when it works well
following the Apache Project Guidelines, both in facts and spirit.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> >>>Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
> >>>But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
> >>
> >>It's completely impractical, and will hurt Jakarta immensely.
> >>
> >>Oh, well, now that I think of it, this is only for projects that have
> >>already been released...
> >>
> >>Other opinions?
> >
> > Has everyone forgotten that it's not just commons that uses
> > org.apache.<projectName> as their java package name within Jakarta.
> > > Ant is org.apache.tools.ant
> > Turbine is org.apache.turbine
> > Velocity is org.apache.velocity
> > Struts is org.apache.struts
> > etc.
>
> Sure, and Turbine will get a turbine.apache.org site, Ant an
> ant.apache.org site... but Commons?
Bear in mind this is not just a website change. It breaks backwards
compatibility of all jakarta projects [at least ones people code against]
and will be confusing to users.
> Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
> the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
Some of the Sandbox ones are blatant Commons projects which just aren't
ready yet. I know that this is probably acceptable to the Incubator
concept but wanted to make sure.
Equally, when does something go from Incubator to Commons? In Jakarta it
seems to be on release of a 1.0. Do things have to stay in Incubator until
they have a 1.0 release?
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Apache commons [was:Re: Naming issues]
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
[...]
> Now, if Apache Commons were
> 1) Just a 'federation' of commons type Apache projects (as per the original
> reorg proposal)
> 2) Not called commons
> that'd be just grand.
1) That's further along the read probably,
what we get now are projects, as the current way.
2) Yeah! :-D
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Apache commons [was:Re: Naming issues]
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
> I can see some good use of an apache-commons :
>
> 1) Projects that are implementing eg RFC's that is not language related
> can commonly discuss implementations, have their API's (where usefull)
> about the same.
> 2) Joining expertise
> 3) Clear for the outside : want an http common implementation go to
> http://blah and you find all the possible implementations there
Part of the issue is about the different *types* of (sub sub) projects we
have in (jakarta) commons. Collections/IO/Util/Pattern/Lang potentially make
quite a close group (eg. same committers). JXpath/CLI/HttpClient are much
more independent of each other, just sharing the same space (eg. different
committers for each). Apache commons doesn't help this, it makes it worse.
> 1) Decisions will be a great pain, unless the specific languages can
> acutally make decisions on their own.
> 2) It can get messy in ML's with language specific issues, not even
> speaking about not very interesting commits from the c part of the
> project
I would set my mail filter so all C and Perl messages go straight to trash.
> apache-commons should be there for the outside and for joining
> expertise, so mainly containing a website + mailinglists.
> This way nothing changes, just some things get added.
> The problem with this can be however who will bring parties together in
> such an effort ;))
Now, if Apache Commons were
1) Just a 'federation' of commons type Apache projects (as per the original
reorg proposal)
2) Not called commons
that'd be just grand.
Stephen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Apache commons [was:Re: Naming issues]
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
I can see some good use of an apache-commons :
1) Projects that are implementing eg RFC's that is not language related
can commonly discuss implementations, have their API's (where usefull)
about the same.
2) Joining expertise
3) Clear for the outside : want an http common implementation go to
http://blah and you find all the possible implementations there
And some bad :
1) Decisions will be a great pain, unless the specific languages can
acutally make decisions on their own.
2) It can get messy in ML's with language specific issues, not even
speaking about not very interesting commits from the c part of the
project
So I come to my conculsion :
apache-commons should be there for the outside and for joining
expertise, so mainly containing a website + mailinglists.
This way nothing changes, just some things get added.
The problem with this can be however who will bring parties together in
such an effort ;))
Just a mind spin here..
Mvgr,
Martin
On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 21:46, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> But Nicola Ken, the basic problem is that I don't support the merging of a
> Java commons with a non-Java commons. There are way too many issues
> generated and few if any benefits. So, I should spend even more of my time
> subscribing to yet another list, to get another 50 emails a day, just to say
> no.
>
> And whats more, no-ones given me any opportunity to vote on it. Its being
> presented as a fait accompli. (And yes I've read your email about it not
> being imposed, but it sure as hell feels that way).
>
> This 'reorg' is going to be very community destroying before long.
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <ni...@apache.org>
> To: "Jakarta General List" <ge...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Cc: <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Naming issues
>
>
> >
> > Michael A. Smith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > >
> > >>Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
> > >>the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
> > >>
> > >>This is not a proposal for a diktat, but a *suggestion* for Jakarta
> > >>Commons projects to take part of the Commons and Incubator Project
> creation.
> > >>
> > >> general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > > As far as jakarta-commons goes (ignoring the sandbox/incubator), I sent
> > > a message to commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org asking whether this is
> > > something we, as committers on jakarta-commons, wanted to consider, and
> > > so far the only real reaction was major uncertainty due to the lack of
> > > defined structure/procedures in @commons.apache.
> >
> > Yeah, that's why I posted it here!
> >
> > Come on guys, come over to general@commons.apache.org, let's make
> > ourselves heard, help create the rules there, so finally Commons can
> > have it's top-level project!
> >
> > It's not something that has to be imposed, we can help over there!
> >
> > general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
> >
> > > hrrmmm... when'd this thread move from reorg@apache to general@jakarta?
> > > strange.
> >
> > hehehe, when I cross-posted ;-)
> >
> > Oh, and now I'm at it, here it goes, welcome to the discussion
> > commons-dev! :-D
> >
> > --
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> > - verba volant, scripta manent -
> > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> >
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Apache commons [was:Re: Naming issues]
Posted by Morgan Delagrange <md...@yahoo.com>.
--- Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
<snip/>
> > And whats more, no-ones given me any opportunity
> to vote on it. Its being
> > presented as a fait accompli. (And yes I've read
> your email about it not
> > being imposed, but it sure as hell feels that
> way).
>
> There is a certain, "you can go your own way, but we
> feel we're bigger
> than you" feeling. Maybe we're just defensive
> though?
>
> Hen
>
To me, it's all hopelessly vague at this point. There
are no details as to how components are accepted,
decisions made, etc. I wrote an email today on the
reorg list trying to encourage elaboration from the
Apache Commons folks, but so far no responses.
I think it's pretty silly that they started the party
and then sent out the invitations. They shouldn't be
surprised when people don't show.
- Morgan
=====
Morgan Delagrange
http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
http://axion.tigris.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Apache commons [was:Re: Naming issues]
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> But Nicola Ken, the basic problem is that I don't support the merging of a
> Java commons with a non-Java commons. There are way too many issues
> generated and few if any benefits. So, I should spend even more of my time
> subscribing to yet another list, to get another 50 emails a day, just to say
> no.
Yep. The reorg itself isn't bad and the Incubator is a good idea
[commons-sandbox is failing in that respect in my opinion]. But I'm left
wondering why a joint Commons if we make the assumption that I believe in:
1) Sharing a mailing list with other languages is not going to help me. It
might help tomcat and httpd, but not the areas I'm involved in.
I've looked at APR to nick ideas for Java utilities. It really just
doesn't map.
2) Sharing a CVS module will be painful.
3) Sharing a website will be painful.
Once those three axioms are accepted, there is no project community, and
therefore no point for the apache-commons project.
I need to post this to apache-commons methinks :)
> And whats more, no-ones given me any opportunity to vote on it. Its being
> presented as a fait accompli. (And yes I've read your email about it not
> being imposed, but it sure as hell feels that way).
There is a certain, "you can go your own way, but we feel we're bigger
than you" feeling. Maybe we're just defensive though?
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Apache commons [was:Re: Naming issues]
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
But Nicola Ken, the basic problem is that I don't support the merging of a
Java commons with a non-Java commons. There are way too many issues
generated and few if any benefits. So, I should spend even more of my time
subscribing to yet another list, to get another 50 emails a day, just to say
no.
And whats more, no-ones given me any opportunity to vote on it. Its being
presented as a fait accompli. (And yes I've read your email about it not
being imposed, but it sure as hell feels that way).
This 'reorg' is going to be very community destroying before long.
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <ni...@apache.org>
To: "Jakarta General List" <ge...@jakarta.apache.org>
Cc: <co...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Naming issues
>
> Michael A. Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >
> >>Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
> >>the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
> >>
> >>This is not a proposal for a diktat, but a *suggestion* for Jakarta
> >>Commons projects to take part of the Commons and Incubator Project
creation.
> >>
> >> general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
> > As far as jakarta-commons goes (ignoring the sandbox/incubator), I sent
> > a message to commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org asking whether this is
> > something we, as committers on jakarta-commons, wanted to consider, and
> > so far the only real reaction was major uncertainty due to the lack of
> > defined structure/procedures in @commons.apache.
>
> Yeah, that's why I posted it here!
>
> Come on guys, come over to general@commons.apache.org, let's make
> ourselves heard, help create the rules there, so finally Commons can
> have it's top-level project!
>
> It's not something that has to be imposed, we can help over there!
>
> general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
>
> > hrrmmm... when'd this thread move from reorg@apache to general@jakarta?
> > strange.
>
> hehehe, when I cross-posted ;-)
>
> Oh, and now I'm at it, here it goes, welcome to the discussion
> commons-dev! :-D
>
> --
> Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
> - verba volant, scripta manent -
> (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
<ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Michael A. Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
>>the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
>>
>>This is not a proposal for a diktat, but a *suggestion* for Jakarta
>>Commons projects to take part of the Commons and Incubator Project creation.
>>
>> general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
>
>
> As far as jakarta-commons goes (ignoring the sandbox/incubator), I sent
> a message to commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org asking whether this is
> something we, as committers on jakarta-commons, wanted to consider, and
> so far the only real reaction was major uncertainty due to the lack of
> defined structure/procedures in @commons.apache.
Yeah, that's why I posted it here!
Come on guys, come over to general@commons.apache.org, let's make
ourselves heard, help create the rules there, so finally Commons can
have it's top-level project!
It's not something that has to be imposed, we can help over there!
general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
> hrrmmm... when'd this thread move from reorg@apache to general@jakarta?
> strange.
hehehe, when I cross-posted ;-)
Oh, and now I'm at it, here it goes, welcome to the discussion
commons-dev! :-D
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Michael A. Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
>>the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
>>
>>This is not a proposal for a diktat, but a *suggestion* for Jakarta
>>Commons projects to take part of the Commons and Incubator Project creation.
>>
>> general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
>
>
> As far as jakarta-commons goes (ignoring the sandbox/incubator), I sent
> a message to commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org asking whether this is
> something we, as committers on jakarta-commons, wanted to consider, and
> so far the only real reaction was major uncertainty due to the lack of
> defined structure/procedures in @commons.apache.
Yeah, that's why I posted it here!
Come on guys, come over to general@commons.apache.org, let's make
ourselves heard, help create the rules there, so finally Commons can
have it's top-level project!
It's not something that has to be imposed, we can help over there!
general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
> hrrmmm... when'd this thread move from reorg@apache to general@jakarta?
> strange.
hehehe, when I cross-posted ;-)
Oh, and now I'm at it, here it goes, welcome to the discussion
commons-dev! :-D
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Michael A. Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
> > the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
> >
> > This is not a proposal for a diktat, but a *suggestion* for Jakarta
> > Commons projects to take part of the Commons and Incubator Project creation.
> >
> > general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
>
> As far as jakarta-commons goes (ignoring the sandbox/incubator), I sent
> a message to commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org asking whether this is
> something we, as committers on jakarta-commons, wanted to consider, and
> so far the only real reaction was major uncertainty due to the lack of
> defined structure/procedures in @commons.apache.
>
> hrrmmm... when'd this thread move from reorg@apache to general@jakarta?
> strange.
Yeah, it tricked me too :)
Moving Jakarta Commons stuff to Apache Commons stuff scares me if the
people in charge of Apache Commons don't seem to 'get' Java. I suspect
they're all reasonable people, but it's too easy to think of scary demands
that might be made.
Such as all Jakarta Commons must change dpackage names. This is gonna be a
very bad experience for users. [Okay, I'm sounding like a scratch record.
[What scares me is that I couldn't remember that phrase and was thinking
'for loop'] ].
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by "Michael A. Smith" <ma...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
> the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
>
> This is not a proposal for a diktat, but a *suggestion* for Jakarta
> Commons projects to take part of the Commons and Incubator Project creation.
>
> general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
As far as jakarta-commons goes (ignoring the sandbox/incubator), I sent
a message to commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org asking whether this is
something we, as committers on jakarta-commons, wanted to consider, and
so far the only real reaction was major uncertainty due to the lack of
defined structure/procedures in @commons.apache.
hrrmmm... when'd this thread move from reorg@apache to general@jakarta?
strange.
regards,
michael
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
>>>Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
>>>But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
>>
>>It's completely impractical, and will hurt Jakarta immensely.
>>
>>Oh, well, now that I think of it, this is only for projects that have
>>already been released...
>>
>>Other opinions?
>
> Has everyone forgotten that it's not just commons that uses
> org.apache.<projectName> as their java package name within Jakarta.
> > Ant is org.apache.tools.ant
> Turbine is org.apache.turbine
> Velocity is org.apache.velocity
> Struts is org.apache.struts
> etc.
Sure, and Turbine will get a turbine.apache.org site, Ant an
ant.apache.org site... but Commons?
Why not just decide to move the Jakarta Commons projects to Commons and
the Sandbox ones to Incubator?
This is not a proposal for a diktat, but a *suggestion* for Jakarta
Commons projects to take part of the Commons and Incubator Project creation.
general-subscribe@commons.apache.org
For the incubator the mailing list is not yet ready, will be soon. :-)
> I don't see a realistic proposal being made that renames all of the
> Jakarta Project source code.
Why do you think I posted this message here? *grrrrr*
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by di...@multitask.com.au.
> > Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
> > But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
>
> It's completely impractical, and will hurt Jakarta immensely.
>
> Oh, well, now that I think of it, this is only for projects that have
> already been released...
>
> Other opinions?
Has everyone forgotten that it's not just commons that uses
org.apache.<projectName> as their java package name within Jakarta.
Ant is org.apache.tools.ant
Turbine is org.apache.turbine
Velocity is org.apache.velocity
Struts is org.apache.struts
etc.
I don't see a realistic proposal being made that renames all of the
Jakarta Project source code.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Sander Striker wrote:
>>From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
>>Sent: 21 October 2002 10:54
>
>
> [...]
>
>>I agree that what you say is the most sensible and correct way...
>>
>>The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
>
> Like we're seeing on reorg@.
Then you've seen nothing yet ;-)
>>Defining a different namespace will just make things easier, by avoiding
>>stupid discussions like the one that is happening now, because there
>>*are* people that just want to break balls as we say.
>
>
> *nod*
>
>
>>IMHO using
>>
>> org.apache.common.*
>>
>>is a possible solution.
>>
>>Also, when I say common_s_ I kept making errors in declarations because
>>I expected "common" since it's a "common" namespace, not a "commons"
>>namespace.
>
>
> Well, I find 'common' not too far off to object to it. We just have
> to make sure that it is well explained* what the Common PMC is about,
> since I can already see the confusion in such a name...
;-)
> It does feel like jumping through hoops though to fix earlier mistakes.
Feels? ;-) It *is* hehehe
> Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
> But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
It's completely impractical, and will hurt Jakarta immensely.
Oh, well, now that I think of it, this is only for projects that have
already been released...
Other opinions?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Sander Striker wrote:
>>From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
>>Sent: 21 October 2002 10:54
>
>
> [...]
>
>>I agree that what you say is the most sensible and correct way...
>>
>>The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
>
> Like we're seeing on reorg@.
Then you've seen nothing yet ;-)
>>Defining a different namespace will just make things easier, by avoiding
>>stupid discussions like the one that is happening now, because there
>>*are* people that just want to break balls as we say.
>
>
> *nod*
>
>
>>IMHO using
>>
>> org.apache.common.*
>>
>>is a possible solution.
>>
>>Also, when I say common_s_ I kept making errors in declarations because
>>I expected "common" since it's a "common" namespace, not a "commons"
>>namespace.
>
>
> Well, I find 'common' not too far off to object to it. We just have
> to make sure that it is well explained* what the Common PMC is about,
> since I can already see the confusion in such a name...
;-)
> It does feel like jumping through hoops though to fix earlier mistakes.
Feels? ;-) It *is* hehehe
> Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
> But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
It's completely impractical, and will hurt Jakarta immensely.
Oh, well, now that I think of it, this is only for projects that have
already been released...
Other opinions?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Naming issues
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Henri Yandell [mailto:bayard@generationjava.com]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 15:48
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
>
> > It does feel like jumping through hoops though to fix earlier mistakes.
> > Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
> > But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
>
> It's a Jakarta naming scheme and not a Jakarta Commons one afaik. No
> jakarta projects include jakarta in their naming scheme.
Urf. But ok, noted. So it is 'wrong' (MHO) at the top level.
> I imagine the reasons are:
>
> 1) Legacy. org.apache.java became Jakarta.
> 2) Ownership. This underlines that Apache own the code and not Jakarta.
I'm probably missing the same background as I do on reorg@, but here goes:
Jakarta is a part of the ASF, therefor anything 'owned' by Jakarta is
owned by the ASF (note the quotes around the first owned). I don't see
how "org.apache.jakarta" would hurt (apart from the released projects point
of view). Or in this case: org.apache.jakarta.commons.
> But you'd have to find some aging old-timer from the early days to give
> you the 'when I was in the war' story.
Would be a good idea. Also to get their opinion on this.
Sander
RE: Naming issues
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
> It does feel like jumping through hoops though to fix earlier mistakes.
> Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
> But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
It's a Jakarta naming scheme and not a Jakarta Commons one afaik. No
jakarta projects include jakarta in their naming scheme.
I imagine the reasons are:
1) Legacy. org.apache.java became Jakarta.
2) Ownership. This underlines that Apache own the code and not Jakarta.
But you'd have to find some aging old-timer from the early days to give
you the 'when I was in the war' story.
Hen
RE: Naming issues
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 10:54
[...]
> I agree that what you say is the most sensible and correct way...
>
> The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
Like we're seeing on reorg@.
> Defining a different namespace will just make things easier, by avoiding
> stupid discussions like the one that is happening now, because there
> *are* people that just want to break balls as we say.
*nod*
> IMHO using
>
> org.apache.common.*
>
> is a possible solution.
>
> Also, when I say common_s_ I kept making errors in declarations because
> I expected "common" since it's a "common" namespace, not a "commons"
> namespace.
Well, I find 'common' not too far off to object to it. We just have
to make sure that it is well explained* what the Common PMC is about,
since I can already see the confusion in such a name...
It does feel like jumping through hoops though to fix earlier mistakes.
Therefor I still think Jakarta Commons should fix their naming scheme.
But that will have to be brought up there, not here.
Sander
*) and published prominently in an accesible webpage.
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Sander Striker wrote:
>>From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
>>Sent: 21 October 2002 01:18
>
>
> [...]
>
>>>That's a good point, but I suspect that the new Commons won't be stealing
>>>the bottom-level names from Jakarta. For example, if...
>>>
>>>"org.apache.commons.Jfooness" is a Jakarta Commons project, then Commons
>>>will just have to be careful not to reuse that prefix.
>>
>
> To quote Justins commit msg:
>
> "I think the namespace pollution argument is petty.
>
> If they followed the true Java standard, jakarta-commons should have used
> org.apache.jakarta.commons rather than org.apache.commons. Too bad."
>
> I have to agree. Why was the 'jakarta' part dropped? On the reorg list
> there was much talk about the Jakarta brand. Why wasn't it included in the
> naming scheme?
>
>
>>The problem here is that jakarta-commons project names are intended to be
>>'bland' (See the commons charter). Thus we have names such as lang,
>>collections, io. These are names that might equally apply to other
>>programming languages.
>
>
> Why would you get namespace collisions between different projects (in
> different languages)? And where would it hurt? Can you give an example?
>
>
>>My opinion is that putting code from different languages into the same CVS
>>is just going to hurt.
>
>
> It certainly doesn't have to.
I agree that what you say is the most sensible and correct way...
The reality is that this *will* create tensions and flamewars.
Defining a different namespace will just make things easier, by avoiding
stupid discussions like the one that is happening now, because there
*are* people that just want to break balls as we say.
IMHO using
org.apache.common.*
is a possible solution.
Also, when I say common_s_ I kept making errors in declarations because
I expected "common" since it's a "common" namespace, not a "commons"
namespace.
2c
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Naming issues
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 12:27
> Sander Striker wrote:
> >
> > Why would you get namespace collisions between different projects (in
> > different languages)? And where would it hurt? Can you give an example?
>
> if someone wanted to construct a non-jakarta regexp library, or one came
> in from xml, or something like that. there was an example on the reorg list..
>
> here it is.. from hen:
>
> > I'm _really_ looking forward to explaining to people that
> > apache-commons-regexp and jakarta-commons-regexp are not the same thing,
> > it's just because the php-regexp engine that was moved to apache-commons
> > has a Java version now [hypothetical obviously].
Ah, but it is not a technical problem. What is pointed out above is
just what we want with Commons IMO. People looking for a regexp lib
come to commons and see multiple implementations they can choose from
(in different languages). Great!. Ofcourse, we should also link to
the jakarta regexp so it gets equal exposure (or ask it to move to
Commons).
I personally still don't see major objections, technical or otherwise, against
using the Commons name.
Sander
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Sander Striker wrote:
>
> Why would you get namespace collisions between different projects (in
> different languages)? And where would it hurt? Can you give an example?
if someone wanted to construct a non-jakarta regexp library, or one came
in from xml, or something like that. there was an example on the reorg list..
here it is.. from hen:
> I'm _really_ looking forward to explaining to people that
> apache-commons-regexp and jakarta-commons-regexp are not the same thing,
> it's just because the php-regexp engine that was moved to apache-commons
> has a Java version now [hypothetical obviously].
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
RE: Naming issues
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: 21 October 2002 01:18
[...]
>> That's a good point, but I suspect that the new Commons won't be stealing
>> the bottom-level names from Jakarta. For example, if...
>>
>> "org.apache.commons.Jfooness" is a Jakarta Commons project, then Commons
>> will just have to be careful not to reuse that prefix.
To quote Justins commit msg:
"I think the namespace pollution argument is petty.
If they followed the true Java standard, jakarta-commons should have used
org.apache.jakarta.commons rather than org.apache.commons. Too bad."
I have to agree. Why was the 'jakarta' part dropped? On the reorg list
there was much talk about the Jakarta brand. Why wasn't it included in the
naming scheme?
> The problem here is that jakarta-commons project names are intended to be
> 'bland' (See the commons charter). Thus we have names such as lang,
> collections, io. These are names that might equally apply to other
> programming languages.
Why would you get namespace collisions between different projects (in
different languages)? And where would it hurt? Can you give an example?
> My opinion is that putting code from different languages into the same CVS
> is just going to hurt.
It certainly doesn't have to.
Sander
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
From: "Aaron Bannert" <aa...@clove.org>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 08:50:37AM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:07, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > The one problem (at least in java land) is that classes are usually
namespaced
> > in reverse DNS order. ie
> >
> > org.apache.commons.X
> >
> > which will clash with jakarta commons. Apache.com does not seem to do
java
> > development work so it may be the case where we can move to
> >
> > apache.commons.X
> >
> > for the Apache commons - thus sidestepping namespace issues. Not sure
though.
>
> That's a good point, but I suspect that the new Commons won't be stealing
> the bottom-level names from Jakarta. For example, if...
>
> "org.apache.commons.Jfooness" is a Jakarta Commons project, then Commons
> will just have to be careful not to reuse that prefix.
The problem here is that jakarta-commons project names are intended to be
'bland' (See the commons charter). Thus we have names such as lang,
collections, io. These are names that might equally apply to other
programming languages.
My opinion is that putting code from different languages into the same CVS
is just going to hurt.
Stephen
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 08:50:37AM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:07, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > > If not, can they still use the name 'commons' ? ( like
> > > commons-logging, etc ).
> >
> > since it is compartmentalised under jakarta, mho is 'yes'.
>
> The one problem (at least in java land) is that classes are usually namespaced
> in reverse DNS order. ie
>
> org.apache.commons.X
>
> which will clash with jakarta commons. Apache.com does not seem to do java
> development work so it may be the case where we can move to
>
> apache.commons.X
>
> for the Apache commons - thus sidestepping namespace issues. Not sure though.
That's a good point, but I suspect that the new Commons won't be stealing
the bottom-level names from Jakarta. For example, if...
"org.apache.commons.Jfooness" is a Jakarta Commons project, then Commons
will just have to be careful not to reuse that prefix.
Anyway, I think the new Commons should provide incentive to the authors
of Jfooness so that over time they might want to move their project
to the new Commons, at which point in a way they already have a reserved
name.
-aaron
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Actually I don't see the problem, since Jakarta Commons is about common
> Java code, and commons is about common java code...
^^^^
i think you meant 'language-agnostic' there..
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Naming issues
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 04:07, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>>If not, can they still use the name 'commons' ? ( like
>>>commons-logging, etc ).
>>
>>since it is compartmentalised under jakarta, mho is 'yes'.
>
>
> The one problem (at least in java land) is that classes are usually namespaced
> in reverse DNS order. ie
>
> org.apache.commons.X
>
> which will clash with jakarta commons. Apache.com does not seem to do java
> development work so it may be the case where we can move to
>
> apache.commons.X
>
> for the Apache commons - thus sidestepping namespace issues. Not sure though.
>
Actually I don't see the problem, since Jakarta Commons is about common
Java code, and commons is about common java code...
Some projects will migrate before, some later, some never, but I'm sure
overlap will not be necessary, as the proposed *bleah* solution ;-P
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------