Hi Rahul, thanks once again for the wise suggestions, much more than appreciated!
I underestimated the importance of the users over the active developers, so I totally agree with you, moving to dormant is premature. I was aware about breaking APIs compatibility, since we had to face the same problem also in [pool2], I thought it would have been a good idea implementing the sandbox in the o.a.c.digester3[1] package, looks like it is compliant to the suggestions you proposed. I like your idea of branching 1.X, 2.X and put 3 on trunk, shall we call a vote before going on? Many thanks in advance, have a nice day, Simo [1] http://s.apache.org/VLZ http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simone Tripodi > <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi all mates!!! >> I need your support on advising our users that a new version of >> Digester is available on sandbox, I already sent more than once an >> email on users ML but never got a reply, maybe my name is not so >> influent between users or maybe the Digester is not so popular as I >> still think... but I wouldn't have wasted the time I invested :P >> >> So, IMHO there are few points that deserve our attention, such: >> >> * if the Digester is out of our users' interest, it should be - >> sadly! - moved to the Dormant; > <snip/> > > We've users, though no active developers beyond you -- as long as > you're interested I think a move to dormant is premature. > > >> * if the previous tense is wrong: >> * just maintain the current implementation in trunk, or >> * evaluate if the new Digester3 is a good candidate to replace the >> proper one >> > <snap/> > > Third option would be to do both. More below. > > >> I'm sure that together we can find the right way, for those interested >> knowing more details, Digester3 docs is on[1] with samples. >> > <snip/> > > Having looked at the samples and API, its clearly not compatible (this > is not a statement about its value). I don't think we should use the > same Java packages (oac.digester.*) since this isn't a drop-in > replacement. However, if you are keen on releasing this (I don't have > time to help in near future), an option would be to promote and > release the sandbox code while keeping the oac.digester3.* packages. > > This would mean doing both: (a) retaining current code in 1.x and 2.x > branches in case future releases need to be made on those lines and > (b) moving sandbox code to trunk as 3.x line (while keeping the > oac.digester3.* packages). > > -Rahul > > >> Looking forward to read from you soon, have a nice day!!! >> Simo >> >> [1] http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/digester3/ >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
