On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:36 PM, Nadia Poulou wrote:
While preparing this release, Nico Klasens and Andr� van Toly offered valuable help with input, reviews, comments etc. Since I am no developer/commitor and with their agreement, I name them as initiators of the vote.
Hi Nadia,
Naming committers is obviously not a valid way to call for a vote. You'll have to persuade one of them to call for a vote himself.
Still, you can contribute significantly to this process, doing the necessary groundwork, by submittng code and providing some introduction and motivation - you've made a good start here already.
Some notes:
The dependency with the JGroups .jar is only in compile time, this causes thus no problems in runtime (for the case that the jgroups jar is not distributed).I don't think this is true. The new classes do rely on the JGroups classes at runtime.
In a clumsy way the classnames have been appended with "JG" and the classes have moved to the *.change package, resulting in sources that cannot compile.
Since these classes provide an alternative to existing classes, I would like to see a motivated proposal regarding the name and location for the new classes, one of these options:
1) replace existing classes
2) place in new package with the same classnames
3) place in new package with alternative classnames
4) place in same package with alternative classnames
Personally I'm in favour of 1 if possible, or else 2 if the old implementation needs to be retained.
Regards, Rob van Maris _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
