On 12/30/05, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reasons for Jakarta would be: > > *) Good reuse of branding. Jakarta is still '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' to many out > there and I think we should use this instead of letting it drop. > > *) Helps Jakarta become a Java Federation. Code reflects community > reflects code. By bringing the shared code to Jakarta, I believe the > shared community will be enhanced. Commons is already shared code, > though that is lessened recently because Jakarta is no longer the > shared community. Bringing the spec jars to Jakarta will help bring > the shared community. > > *) Jakarta is neutral ground in Java terms at Apache. Increasingly so > as everyone leaves. > > Reasons for not Jakarta: > > *) Java specific. > > *) Existing community might be -1 [I've not seen negatives yet though] > > *) Have to mollify the worries about the 'old Jakarta'. > > *) It could just go under the jcp structure.
I wonder why it has to be Java-specific ? Aren't there any standards that contains bindings for several languages ? Tom --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
