Dear Wiki user,
You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Jakarta Wiki" for change notification.
The following page has been changed by RobertBurrellDonkin:
The comment on the change is:
Initial draft based on Jakarta Commons charter
New page:
= Draft Charter For Web Component Commons =
== About This Page ==
This is a space for easy development of the charter. Since the web components commons is intended to function in the same way that Jakarta Commons does, the initial version will be the current Jakarta Commons charter.
Please do not edit comments into this text: please use the or post to [ General At Jakarta].
== Draft Charter ==
(0) rationale
Apache-Java and Jakarta originally hosted product-based subprojects, consisting of one major deliverable. The Java language however is package-based, and most of these products have many useful utilities. Some products are beginning to break these out so that they can be used independently. A Jakarta subproject to solely create and maintain independent packages is proposed to accelerate and guide this process.
(1) scope of the subproject
The subproject shall create and maintain packages written in the Java language, intended for use in server-related development, and designed to be used independently of any larger product or framework. Each package will be managed in the same manner as a larger Jakarta product. To further this goal, the subproject shall also host a workplace for Jakarta committers.
(1.1) the sandbox
The subproject will host a CVS repository available to all Apache committers as a workplace for new packages or other projects.
(2) identify the initial set of committers
'''PLEASE LEAVE EMPTY'''
== Draft Guidelines ==
Note :
* is, has, will, shall, must - required.
* may, should, are encouraged - optional but recommended.
1. The primary unit of reuse and release is the package.
1. The package library is not a framework but a collection of components designed to be used independently.
1. Each package must have a clearly defined purpose, scope, and API -- Do one thing well, and keep your contracts.
1. Each package is treated as a product in its own right.
1. Each package has its own status file, release schedule, version number, QA tests, documentation, mailing list, bug category, and individual JAR.
2. Each package must clearly specify any external dependencies, including any other Commons packages, and the earliest JDK version required.
1. External dependencies on optional and third-party codebases should be minimized.
2. All necessary dependencies must be recorded in the MANIFEST.MF file of the package JAR, in the manner recommended in the JDK 1.3 documentation describing 'system extensions'
3. Each package must maintain a list of its active committers in its status file.
1. The packages should use a standard scheme for versioning, QA tests, and directory layouts, and a common format for documentation and Ant build files.
1. The packages should fit within a unified package hierarchy.
1. In general, packages should provide an interface and one or more implementations of that interface, or implement another interface already in use.
* The packages should have boring functional names. Implementations may choose more 'exciting' designations.
1. Packages are encouraged to either use JavaBeans as core objects, a JavaBean-style API, or to provide an optional JavaBean wrapper.
1. External configuration files are discouraged, but if required, XML format files are preferred for configuration options.
1. Each package will be hosted on its own page on the subproject Web site, and will also be indexed in a master directory.
1. The subproject will also host a top-level 'general' mailing list in addition to any lists for specific packages.
1. The subproject will also provide a single JAR of all stable package releases. It may also provide a second JAR with a subset of only JDK 1.1 compatible releases. A gump of nightly builds will also be provided.
1. Volunteers become committers to this subproject in the same way they are entered to any Jakarta subproject. Being a committer in another Jakarta subproject is not a prerequisite.
1. Each committer has karma to all the packages, but committers are required to add their name to a package's status file before their first commit to that package.
1. New packages may be proposed to the Jakarta Commons mailing list. To be accepted, a package proposal must receive majority approval of the subproject committers. Proposals are to identify the rationale for the package, its scope, its interaction with other packages and products, the Commons resources, if any, to be created, the initial source from which the package is to be created, the coding conventions used for the package (if different from the Sun coding conventions), and the initial set of committers.
* As stated in the Jakarta guidelines, an action requiring majority approval must receive at least 3 binding +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes.
1. It is expected that the scope of packages may sometimes overlap.
1. Anyone may propose a new package to the Commons, and list themselves as the initial committers for the package. The vote on the proposal is then also a vote to enter new committers to the subproject as needed.
1. A CVS repository will be available to all Apache committers as a workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the public, code or documentation developed here must be sponsored by Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the rest of their codebase.
1. Each Commons component should use an internally consistent and documented coding style. When the source code for a component originates in a pre-existing code base outside of Commons, the coding style of that code base may be retained at the discretion of the initial committers. If a component does not specify its coding style, the Sun Coding Convention guidelines are assumed.
1. The subproject catalog will also list packages and resources available to the public related to other Jakarta subprojects and ASF projects.
1. As a Jakarta subproject, the Commons adopts all other guidelines and procedures of Jakarta and the Apache Software Foundation, as they may be amended from time to time.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

Apache Wiki wrote:

Please do not edit comments into this text: please use the
or post to [ General At
Jakarta].

K, here I am posting :-)

I'd like to suggest 2 things:

1.We prefereably use Maven for the builds, as it helps a lot handling
the dependencies (if we stick to Ant, we should at least use Ivy or M2
Ant stuff for dependency management). For instance, I haven't applied
some patches to the Jakarta Taglibs because my computers are not set for
building them anymore (and I don't have the time/patience to fix it).

2.Regarding the Jakarta Taglibs, we should create the new taglibs from
scratch. I mean, of course we should reuse the code, but we better do
some refactoring first (for instance, eliminating redundant taglibs,
defining a role for TLD names, etc) - the current Jakarta Taglibs
would then be "frozen in time".

3.What about the Standard Taglibs? Should it be part of this new project
or should it be a separate project. The reasoning here is that, because
that sub-project provide the codebase for JSTL's implementation (and
maybe other JSR taglibs in the future as well, such as the Web Services
taglib), its development activities/cycles might be different from the
"non-standard" ones (we could even try to apply the TCK on such projects
in the future, for instance).

-- Felipe

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

Felipe Leme wrote:
I'd like to suggest 2 things:
3
Damn, beaten by the ENTER key again :-(
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

Thu, 2005-06-23 at 00:49 -0300, Felipe Leme wrote:
Apache Wiki wrote:

Please do not edit comments into this text: please use the
or post to [ General At
Jakarta].

K, here I am posting :-)

I'd like to suggest 2 things:

1.We prefereably use Maven for the builds, as it helps a lot handling
the dependencies (if we stick to Ant, we should at least use Ivy or M2
Ant stuff for dependency management). For instance, I haven't applied
some patches to the Jakarta Taglibs because my computers are not set for
building them anymore (and I don't have the time/patience to fix it).

jakarta commons is agnostic (but uses maven for the website). i'd
recommend official agnosticism with unofficial encouragement to maven.
it is a good idea to provide ant scripts generated by maven in SVN.

2.Regarding the Jakarta Taglibs, we should create the new taglibs from
scratch. I mean, of course we should reuse the code, but we better do
some refactoring first (for instance, eliminating redundant taglibs,
defining a role for TLD names, etc) - the current Jakarta Taglibs
would then be "frozen in time".

IMH it would probably be more convenient to maintain these frozen
taglibs (from an official perspective) within the new subproject. with
subversion, it's really nice and easy to have cool directory
structures

3.What about the Standard Taglibs? Should it be part of this new project
or should it be a separate project. The reasoning here is that, because
that sub-project provide the codebase for JSTL's implementation (and
maybe other JSR taglibs in the future as well, such as the Web Services
taglib), its development activities/cycles might be different from the
"non-standard" ones (we could even try to apply the TCK on such projects
in the future, for instance).

if the new subproject is anything like the commons then each component
will have it's own development rhythm.

it might be easier to raise extra hands when needed for these efforts if
these share the same infrastructure (mailing lists, subproject
organization and so on).

opinions?
- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

Thu, 2005-06-23 at 00:52 -0300, Felipe Leme wrote:
Felipe Leme wrote:

I'd like to suggest 2 things:

3

Damn, beaten by the ENTER key again :-(

shades of monty python's flying circus ;)
- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

robert burrell donkin wrote:
if the new subproject is anything like the commons then each component
will have it's own development rhythm.

I think this is a cogent point if the idea is that this is like a
Commons project, than I have to ask the question: why not just have a
few new Commons projects, as was my original proposal?

I originally started by suggesting a Commons Filters, because I had some
filters I wanted to contribute. So far I think we've brainstormed
something like 4-6 sort of "sub-packages" of this If they are going
to develop to their own rhythm as you say, then why not make each a
Commons project, where there already largely is the "infrastructure" (in
the larger sense) build up? That would seem to me the path of least (or
at least lower) resistance, and maybe even a more appropriate fit.

It's a question of what the vision is of course if everyone is
thinking along the commons lines anyway, why not just do it in Commons?

Frank

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

Thu, 2005-06-23 at 17:55 -0400, Frank W. Zammetti wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
if the new subproject is anything like the commons then each component
will have it's own development rhythm.

I think this is a cogent point if the idea is that this is like a
Commons project, than I have to ask the question: why not just have a
few new Commons projects, as was my original proposal?

The relevant questions are:
* what percentage of the existing commons developers are
interested in working on web components
* what percentage of the prospective web developers are
interested in participating in other commons projects
* what percentage of users and interested in both web and
normal commons projects.

If the answer to any of these is high then the benefits of a combined
community outweigh the nuisance of excessive emails, overly-large
subproject lists and general distraction.

I would guess the critical threshold to be about 25% - but I don't think
that will be reached, ie I believe that less than 25% of existing
commons committers would be interested in web commons components of the
sort proposed. Therefore having such components in the existing commons
will just annoy people without having any significant benefits (other
than allowing this startup hassle for "web commons" to be skipped).

Already we have people (both developers and users) agitating for
separate per-component mail lists due to the volume of emails in
commons. Some people have stated that they refuse to subscribe or be
part of the community while there is a shared list. I would hate to see
separate lists, but they have a point - there is an upper limit to the
amount of mail people can handle (esp. people on dial-up connections;
filtering by mail subject doesn't reduce the bandwidth needed to
download all the mails).

There is also the issue of community size. Commons has a couple of dozen
regular committers, which means we all recognise each other's names.
That's quite important I think, and brings some sense of team
membership. Diluting this with another dozen developers (I hope "web
commons" will grow to that size!) may change that sense of community
(esp. if we don't have many interests in common). And likewise for new
"web commons" committers - I think the sense of a team will be stronger
with a separate project/mail-list etc.

I admit it's all guesswork and a little crystal-ball-gazing. If
web-commons is a failure, ie only a couple of projects get off the
ground, then the existing commons would be a better home. But I hope
that's not the case - there does seem to be a reasonable number of ideas
and people willing to push them forward.

Regards,

Simon

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

Thu, 23 Jun 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:

Thu, 2005-06-23 at 00:49 -0300, Felipe Leme wrote:
>Apache Wiki wrote:

Please do not edit comments into this text: please use the
>or post to [ General At
>Jakarta].
>>
>K, here I am posting :-)
>>
>3.What about the Standard Taglibs? Should it be part of this new project
>or should it be a separate project. The reasoning here is that, because
>that sub-project provide the codebase for JSTL's implementation (and
>maybe other JSR taglibs in the future as well, such as the Web Services
>taglib), its development activities/cycles might be different from the
>"non-standard" ones (we could even try to apply the TCK on such projects
>in the future, for instance).
>
if the new subproject is anything like the commons then each component
will have it's own development rhythm.

it might be easier to raise extra hands when needed for these efforts if
these share the same infrastructure (mailing lists, subproject
organization and so on).

opinions?

My vote is for the active Taglibs to roll into the web component
subproject, but for the Standard/JSTL taglib to move to Jakarta subproject
status.

Taglibs-user is dominated by JSTL questions and the JSTL committers don't
have any obvious overlap with the other taglib committers (that I've
noticed). Also in terms of codebase, Standard is the relative behemoth.

Lastly it has a much higher profile than other parts of
web-component-subproject will have and as a spec implementation it has a
different set of issues to deal with.

Hen

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

Thu, 2005-06-23 at 20:14 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
Thu, 23 Jun 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:

Thu, 2005-06-23 at 00:49 -0300, Felipe Leme wrote:
>Apache Wiki wrote:

Please do not edit comments into this text: please use the
>or post to [ General At
>Jakarta].
>>
>K, here I am posting :-)
>>
>3.What about the Standard Taglibs? Should it be part of this new project
>or should it be a separate project. The reasoning here is that, because
>that sub-project provide the codebase for JSTL's implementation (and
>maybe other JSR taglibs in the future as well, such as the Web Services
>taglib), its development activities/cycles might be different from the
>"non-standard" ones (we could even try to apply the TCK on such projects
>in the future, for instance).
>
if the new subproject is anything like the commons then each component
will have it's own development rhythm.

it might be easier to raise extra hands when needed for these efforts if
these share the same infrastructure (mailing lists, subproject
organization and so on).

opinions?

My vote is for the active Taglibs to roll into the web component
subproject, but for the Standard/JSTL taglib to move to Jakarta subproject
status.

Taglibs-user is dominated by JSTL questions and the JSTL committers don't
have any obvious overlap with the other taglib committers (that I've
noticed). Also in terms of codebase, Standard is the relative behemoth.

Lastly it has a much higher profile than other parts of
web-component-subproject will have and as a spec implementation it has a
different set of issues to deal with.

+1

are there any committers involved with JSTL around?

if not, would anyone like to volunteer to sound them out about a move to
subproject status?
- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

6/26/05, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin (AT) blueyonder (DOT) co.ukwrote:

are there any committers involved with JSTL around?

if not, would anyone like to volunteer to sound them out about a move to
subproject status?

I've mentioned the idea on the taglibs-dev mailing list, no reply as yet.

Hen

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org

Henri Yandell wrote:
>>are there any committers involved with JSTL around?

Sorry, I raised the question then entered in J :(

>>if not, would anyone like to volunteer to sound them out about a move to
>>subproject status?

I vote for Standard being a separate Jakarta sub-project.

I've mentioned the idea on the taglibs-dev mailing list, no reply as yet.

There hasn't being too many messages by the committers lately, specially
on votes. So, tomorrow (I'm too tired now :-) I will send a big message
summarizing all of these pending votes and hopefully we will get enough
committer answers now
-- Felipe

To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help (AT) jakarta (DOT) apache.org