On Apr 14, 2005, at 9:46 PM, Nico Klasens wrote:
She couldn't find any clear answer about who is allowed to call a vote. I searched for it too and could not find an answer either. We decided that she would make the vote and mention us as callers.
Ok. I thought only comitters can propose hacks, but as it turns out this is not the case. According to the guidelines :
"Hacks can be proposed by developers, but only committers can vote."
Not sure if Nadia qualifies as developer, but I'll give her the benefit of doubt ;-).
This is true as long as you don't load these classes into memory. When you don't use this implementation then you don't have problems in runtime when you don't have the jgroup jars. Distributing mmbase with these classes without the jars is possible. (Already point out by Michiel)
Ok, then we agree after all.
All implementations are in the *.change package. Easiest is to prefix the classes instead of postfix.
Given the licensing issues pointed out by Gerard its a good idea indeed to put these classes in a separate package.
Apart from that I wonder if there is a point in retaining the old implementation. Otherwise I'd rather see the original classes removed (or deprecated for now). Keeping both implementations only makes sense if they offer different funtionality, which isn't the case is understand correctly.
Regards, Rob van Maris
_______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
