Am 15.04.2017 um 00:15 schrieb Gilles: > Hi Oliver. > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:48:26 +0200, Oliver Heger wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am 14.04.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Gilles: >>> Hi Benedikt. >>> >>> On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:49:25 +0200, Benedikt Ritter wrote: >>>> [...] >>> >>>> My personal opinion is, that neither CM, nor numbers or RNG belong >>>> into commons. They are to specific and should form a TLP on their own. >>> >>> The only working definition I know of "Commons" is: a home for >>> projects too small to exist on their own. >>> I gathered that what is important is that there are people willing >>> to maintain the component. >>> >>>> But that’s only my opinion. >>> >>> I *really* do not understand how you form an opinion that >>> "RNG" and "Numbers" do not belong as rightfully as <any other> >>> component. >> >> The Commons charter mentions "reusable libraries and components". I used >> to interpret this as general-purpose components, meaning that they are >> useful for applications in multiple domains. This definition should hold >> for most of the components we have now. > > But not for "RNG" or "Numbers"? > > How many is "multiple"? > >> It does not hold for specialized math components. > > Do you believe that the other components are not "specialized"? Yes, I believe that they are general purpose in nature. Stuff from [lang] or [io] can be used e.g. by applications in financial sector, in aviation, in medicine, in web applications, in command line tools, you name it.
> > I never had the need for any of the "Commons" components except > CM, but it would not occur to me to speculate about how largely > useful they actually are. > I trust their creators/maintainers in that respect. This is not about usefulness of a component, but whether it is a fit for [commons]. That you never had the need for any other component could also be an indicator that [math] does not really fit in, couldn't it? Oliver > > Now, you can validly argue that people needing the kind of > math-related stuff of CM would not use Java... ;-) > >> Therefore, I >> personally feel uneasy with them and would have difficulties to provide >> oversight for them. > > As long as someone else helps where you cannot, what's the > problem? > And when nobody can, there is "dormant"... > > Gilles > >> >> But granted, the distinction is not very clear, and this is my >> interpretation. >> >> Oliver >> >>> [...] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
