----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Dever" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: more common classes need a home
> The re-use structure is completely package based. So smaller packages > are more re-usable. I think a commons.uri package with those 6 or 8 > files is a nice, small, focused, re-usable package. I agree with you, as you wish. ;) > These classes are quite mature and so do not need to be in the sandbox: I don't think it's not mature... :( They have couple of issues still, as I know.. just not revealed yet. > they should be allowed to go right into commons proper. I'm willing to > help out with the administrative aspect of setting up a commons-uri > project including project proposal, releases, stuff like that. I think your help will be very helpful in commons-sandbox right now... ^^; Sung-Gu > > Sung-Gu wrote: > > > I think, as I see, 'Jakarta commons' indicates the square of applications > >for the small fuctions usefule to be used by other projects or > >applications. > > It means there aren't any way to refer to some or several reusable > >classes in an easiness. BTW, jsd is asking to refer and use some classes, > >I guess. Any suggestions? > > > > Since the commons package has not been for only re-usable classes, (but > >small apps) > >I think it's better for me to start a new sandbox using URI and related > >classes. > >If it were going on, it would be an experimetal web client based on a new > >archicture. > > > >Sung-Gu > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Tomasz Pik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: more common classes need a home > > > > > > > > > >>Jeffrey Dever wrote: > >> > >> > >>>There are still a bunch of classes that are in both HttpClient and > >>>Slide. In particular: > >>>Base64.java > >>>HttpsURL.java > >>>HttpURL.java > >>>URIException.java > >>>URI.java > >>>URIUtil.java > >>>URLUtil.java > >>> > >>> > >>Base64 into 'codec' but the rest? > >>commons-net is reserved... in the time of moving from 'sandbox'. > >>Maybe it's a good moment for change from commons-net to > >>commons-protocols? Or maybe those classes should go into > >>commons-lang (another subpackage, lang.net, another long > >>discussion about the scope of lang :-)? > >> > >>-- > >>Regards > >>Tomek Pik > >> > >> > >> > >>>Jandalf. > >>> > >>> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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]
