On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:32:00PM -0800, Scott Sanders wrote: > Jeff, > > I have yet to understand the 'rift' between Avalon and commons, but I > will look into this as a submission. Thanks for the reminder ;-)
Thanks :) I think the 'rift' started because Pete initially -1'ed the creation of Commons, due to scope overlap with Avalon's charter. Here is the posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.mail-archive.com/general%40jakarta.apache.org/msg00645.html Since then, Commons has been a great success. But there WAS scope overlap, as evidenced by the amount of generic utility code lying around in Avalon. So we have this situation where each project semi-ignores the other. This is mostly to Avalon's detriment: many Avalon developers are on the commons-dev list, but I suspect most Commons developers aren't on the avalon-dev list. So the most obvious remedy would be for Avalon to move all generic code to Commons. This would involve: o Identifying what's generic (a lot of the stuff in Excalibur is generic, with a Component wrapper), and moving it. o Add required commons-*.jar to Avalon's tools/lib dir. o Deprecate now-obsolete Avalon code (for a looong time). This has parallels with how Cocoon recently moved a bunch of reusable code into Avalon. I truly don't understand all the implications (both technical, and issues of project identity and cohesion) of such a change. What do Avalon people think? Worth attempting? --Jeff > Cheers, > Scott Sanders > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 4:26 PM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: The spirit of sharing > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I developed a pretty comprehensive class for this sort of IO stream > > manipulation: > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/excalibur/api/org/apache/aval > > on/excalibur/io/IOUtil.html > > > > Offered to Commons as a StreamUtils replacement once, but got > > no reply. So I'll offer again. > > > > > > --Jeff > > > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 04:08:36PM -0800, Michael Bayne wrote: > > > I've been using commons/util for some projects and > > inevitably end up > > > extending the useful utility classes provided therein. I've been > > > putting these in my own utility library, but I'd like to contribute > > > back to commons/util where appropriate. > > > > > > What would be the procedure for doing this? > > > > > > Here's a patch for starters: [..] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
