incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <>
Subject Re: Issues with XMLBeans proposal
Date Thu, 03 Jul 2003 20:22:10 GMT
On 7/3/03 3:50 PM, "Cliff Schmidt" <> 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.


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 --
>  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.

> Thanks,
> Cliff
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Andrew C. Oliver
Custom enhancements and Commercial Implementation for Jakarta POI
For Java and Excel, Got POI?

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message