Is Jakarta essentially dead? I thought Jakarta was the place for all things Java at the ASF. That's where the "regular" commons project started out. It makes sense to me that the JME (J2ME whatever) commons project would start there.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > lol :) > > Mvgr, > Martin > > > > James Carman wrote: > > How about this goes into Jakarta? > > > > > > > > On 4/10/08, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Nick Burch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi All > >>> > > >>> > I've been chatting to a few people at ApacheCon about a j2me commons, > >> and > >>> > they suggested I bring the idea to the dev list. > >>> > > >>> <snip/> > >>> > >>> I'm one of those people. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > My idea was to have a commons library that implemented all the common > >>> > things you want to do for j2me, which have annoyingly been missed out > >> of > >>> > the j2me spec, or are quite hard to do. > >>> > > >>> > Currently, I have a few functions that I've written for a project, > >> which > >>> > I'm happy to apache license. What I also have is tests for them, and > >> some > >>> > ant magic which allows you to build them on j2se, and also to unit > test > >>> > them on j2se, against a j2me class library (assuming you have the sun > >> wtk > >>> > installed somewhere) > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Do people think this is worth putting in as a new sandbox component? > >> I'm > >>> > happy to oversee the new component, if people are happy for me to put > >> it > >>> > in (+grant myself appropriate svn karma to do so) > >>> > > >>> <snap/> > >>> > >>> I think we need a different name ( not [j2me] ). Please try to define > >>> a scope via a proposal ( see recent example: > >>> http://markmail.org/message/4z6z4zendcusdcnu ) -- its great for > >>> archival so I like those things :-) > >>> > >>> All - > >>> > >>> I suggest we let Nick have a go at it. > >>> > >>> The scope / component size question raised is real. I think we will > >>> have a better idea when we see the code. > >> +1, good thinking. If things scope grows too large, they can always go > >> upwards. It's much harder for an Incubator project or TLP to discover > >> it was in fact too small and go downwards. As Nick's a committer, > >> let's give him Sandbox space. > >> > >> Hen > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
