On 7/3/03 3:50 PM, "Cliff Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:57 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > >> 2. Pick your project. I think it would have been a lot less >> confusing to mail the proposal to Jakarta or XML. Personally, if >> this is a Java only project, I think it should go to Jakarta. If it >> is a mult-platform C a/o C++ and Java, then it make sense for it to >> be part of XML. The proposers and sponsors should just decide and go >> in a single direction rather than kicking off a big debate. > > This is definitely a Java-only project right now. If that is a clear > line of separation, I will stop posting to the XML list. The reason > I posted to both lists was partly due to the fact that XMLBeans is much > more XML-centric than Java centric (in terms of data modeling and the > full fidelity availability of the XML Infoset); I really feel like this > is one of those projects that could go either way. The other reason > for posting to both lists is that three different Apache people (two of > them ASF members) advised me to do so. I'm definitely interested in > feedback as to whether to just limit the discussion to Jakarta right > now. >
options: 1. Top level project - IMHO this isn't big enough and you don't have the open source experience or robust community to pull that off (not intended to be a criticism) 2. XML - I'm sure it would be fine. 3. Jakarta - IMHO this the best place for it. The division of XML vs Jakarta predates me for certain, but I think the main issues surrounding that are rusty. > I've tried to address some of the differences with XMLBeans and why I > think it adds a lot more than currently existing projects (see my > response to Howard -- http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? > [EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=15061). However, this might > be a good time for David Bau, the architect behind XMLBeans, to jump in > with his views. > Okay. It sounds like there are some issues which warrant this over others. I could see this being useful in things like web services as well... Limit object creation/serialization and yada yada yada... Though from reading the 10k foot view you could support JAXB if you wanted to. Just an element of curio for me...Offtopic...nevermind ;-) > > We would appreciate any help anyone has to offer, but I'm hoping we > don't appear to need any special treatment. I've spent the last few > months talking to everyone I can and reading everything I can about > how to do this right. You and Howard have brought up some very > reasonable points and I want to make sure I address them (either with > further explanation or by making whatever changes to this proposal are > necessary). > Well the homogony is a big issue. Apache isn't a panacea, you'll have to work at it but I think you're sincere and motivated. Steven can help you through the gauntlet^M^M^M^M^M^M^Mincubator process and provided the committership had rounded out, and you integrated with Gump I'd vote in favor of Jakarta acceptance. (BTW acceptance to Jakarta is a majority of the Jakarta PMC vote)... It would be nice if other Jakarta PMC members sounded off a little so the incubator can hear. -Andy > Thanks, > Cliff > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Andrew C. Oliver http://www.superlinksoftware.com/poi.jsp Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI http://jakarta.apache.org/poi For Java and Excel, Got POI? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
