On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Kurt Werle wrote: > > Kurt, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot here. > > Which is (sincerely) my fault. > > > Requests for test cases go out in response to any patch more than a few > > lines > > long. > > Which is good to hear. > > >> 2. > >> JoeBlow, > >> Thanks for submitting the patch. I couldn't get it to work OR I don't > >> see the point OR This is not the direction we're headed. > > > > The patch did not initially include a description of its use cases. The > > description eventually was eventually posted to the list. > > And then...?
And there it still sits. > > Since no one is actively developing this package, there is no > > "direction" or > > than "don't introduce bugs". My apologies if I haven't made this > > blatantly > > clear by now. > > Which would also explain why I consider the project stagnant. I like to think of it as "feature complete". ;) Not that any software ever is (at least, until it can send email), but it serves its purpose, and does a pretty good job of it. > >> 3. > >> > >> You seem to have chosed #3, which is ignore Joe. As near as I can > >> tell, > >> that's the most destructive one. If that expectation paints me as > >> being > >> "unexperienced with open source > >> development", I'm glad I've chosen the right projects to contribute to. > > > > I am one of many maintaining this package as a > > _volunteer_, Kurt. No one is paying me to work on this package, I > > simply > > endeavour to keep it running smoothly enough that it doesn't cause > > problems > > for my company's software. > > I appreciate that. The company I work for uses apache's xmlrpc at my > recommendation, and it works FANTASTICALLY. I am truly grateful, and so > are they. I'm pretty happy with it too. > > The recent patch from Andrew which was pointed out to start this > > discussion > > _is_ something of use to me and my company, thus I could take the time > > to > > participate on its development and integration. > > So there is a direction after all. At least from your perspective. > You're just keeping it a little secret from us. At least from our > perspective. Please take that as a constructive criticism. Of course. I don't have a particular direction for the XML-RPC library, but know what direction my company's application is headed in. The changes in question were refactorings which didn't add additional functionality, just allowed more integration points for what's there. > From being on this list for a short time, it seems like apache's xmlrpc > is considered to be pretty much finished. Maybe try and maintain JDK > 1.1 compatibility (still not clear), keep the footprint small (or maybe > fork off a larger version). I hate to say it, but it might be nice to > have a concise "Mission Statement" at > http://xml.apache.org/xmlrpc/index.html . It MIGHT also be nice to > mention some other flavors of xmlrpc/java in that page. All of the above sounds very good to me. It's just not my itch, ya know? Contributions welcome, of course. ;) -- Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
