PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 21:54
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [combo] Commons Core release?
>
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 15 Au
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > >
> > > > Forcing a user of three api's to grab
> > > > dependencies for 12 other api's is going to ki
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> > > Forcing a user of three api's to grab
> > > dependencies for 12 other api's is going to kill combo dead in the water.
> >
> > An observation: a user of
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> > Forcing a user of three api's to grab
> > dependencies for 12 other api's is going to kill combo dead in the water.
>
> An observation: a user of 3 APIs doesn't need to grab any external
> dependencies
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Forcing a user of three api's to grab
> dependencies for 12 other api's is going to kill combo dead in the water.
An observation: a user of 3 APIs doesn't need to grab any external
dependencies outside of those three APIs. If you never load or use the
d
I haven't added to the debate up till now as I wanted to see how things
went.
Firstly, my definition of 'core' is basic extensions to the JDK, no config
files, no logging, no framework.
lang
io
collections
codec (never looked at it, but may fit)
cli?? (never looked at it, but may be more framework
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> Trying to define "combo" as anything other than "the latest released
> version of every Commons package" seems like it's guaranteed to cause
> arguments. The collection you propose below, for example, is totally
> useless to me and all the project
A little different idea:
How about creating plugin for Maven that will repackage
all libraries defined as dependency into one jar?
(note problem with MANIFEST file here).
Then everybody may create own 'combo' just by writing
project.xml file.
I know it's different idea then releasing 'combo' as
sep
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:13:40 +0900
> From: Tetsuya Kitahata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:00:04 -0400
(Subject: RE: [combo] Commons Core release?)
"Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Now, Jakarta-ORO think about one of the potentialities
> > > of the transfer to commons-proper. (How about Regexp, ECS?)
> >
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 12:29 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
I figured the munging would be unlikely to pass muster. The easy solution
is that BeanUtils/Net are not allowed into a combo-distribution until
their dependencies are. So ORO/commons-logging would have to be in it. One
problem there
Nobody is talking about eliminating the individual releases. The question
is whether or not we should offer an *additional* combination package of
some sort, and what it should contain. One can certainly extend the
concept recursively beyond Jakarta Commons, but something like this is
going to a
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 05:29 AM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
Combo project is very attractive and useful for most of the
java engineers. Oro, Regexp, ECS can join to it, i think.
Makes sense to me. All three of those packages are the right s
ckage name
would be ideal and make sense Comments please ;-)
-- Tetsuya ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
(Subject: Re: [combo] Commons Core release?)
"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Comments interspersed.
>
> On Thu, 14 A
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
>
> >
> > The reason for JDK 1.4 is due to trying to get more in. I think a JDK1.2
> > version should exist too, but it would not contain HttpClient (?) which I
> > thought might be 1.4 dependant now for SSL and would not include BeanUtils
> > with t
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tomasz Pik wrote:
> A little different idea:
> How about creating plugin for Maven that will repackage
> all libraries defined as dependency into one jar?
> (note problem with MANIFEST file here).
> Then everybody may create own 'combo' just by writing
> project.xml file.
T
commons as well
Cheers,
-AMT
-Original Message-
From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:38 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [combo] Commons Core release?
> I suggest creating a small interactive utility that can be run
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tomasz Pik wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> > I figured the munging would be unlikely to pass muster. The easy solution
> > is that BeanUtils/Net are not allowed into a combo-distribution until
> > their dependencies are. So ORO/commons-logging would have to be in it. One
Last November [I think] Craig created the Combo project. It puts a whole
lot of Commons projects into one jar and makes them available in a much
simpler form to users.
This is the biggest complaint about Commons at the moment [I think], that
we have some kind of reproduction of jars going on in w
OTECTED]>
> Subject: [combo] Commons Core release?
>
>
> Last November [I think] Craig created the Combo project. It puts a whole
> lot of Commons projects into one jar and makes them available in a much
> simpler form to users.
>
> This is the biggest complaint about Common
available as of the end of ***,
> year 200X" ... So, "Commons-Core_(Month)_.jar"-styled package name
> would be ideal and make sense Comments please ;-)
>
> -- Tetsuya ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> --
>
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 21:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
> (Subject:
Left Craig's til last :)
Comments inline...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> Comments interspersed.
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:02:52 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > This is the biggest complaint a
> Is it just that JCE/JSSE weren't combined with 1.2? So to be only
> dependent on a single JDK [and not additional Sun jars], you'd need 1.4?
>
Not really. One can still happily run HttpClient on Java 1.2 (without
JCE & JSEE installed at all) as long as HTTPS and NTLM are not used. An
attempt to
Henri Yandell wrote:
A url to a build is: http://www.apache.org/~bayard/commons-core/
I'm doing some trickery to turn BeanUtils' commons-logging dependency into
a JDK1.4 util.logging dependency. It would be nice to add Pool, HttpClient
and maybe Net [with some regexp trickery] and consider that a
>
> The reason for JDK 1.4 is due to trying to get more in. I think a JDK1.2
> version should exist too, but it would not contain HttpClient (?) which I
> thought might be 1.4 dependant now for SSL and would not include BeanUtils
> with the current api munging.
>
Httpclient is still run-time de
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Stanley,Michael P. wrote:
> ...projects in all my projects. I want to add my two cents to this
> conversation.
Always welcome.
> -1 on any combination. Core / Combo - whatever. I think it is a bad
> idea.
>
> Dealing with dependencies and versions in Java is difficult e
Henri Yandell wrote:
I figured the munging would be unlikely to pass muster. The easy solution
is that BeanUtils/Net are not allowed into a combo-distribution until
their dependencies are. So ORO/commons-logging would have to be in it. One
problem there is commons-logging's dependency on log4j, log
Craig R. McClanahan:
> Tetsuya wrote:
> > Now, Jakarta-ORO think about one of the potentialities
> > of the transfer to commons-proper. (How about Regexp, ECS?)
> Makes sense to me. All three of those packages are the right sort of
> scale (self contained class libraries) that Commons was design
> Hi everyone -
>
> I'm not directly involved with any Jakarta/Apache project at the
> moment. I lurk on a ton of the lists and have lurked for some time.
Ha! So I am not the only one. :)
> -1 on any combination. Core / Combo - whatever. I think it is a bad
> idea.
Agree with you that it is a
evelopers List
>Subject: Re: [combo] Commons Core release?
>
>
>
>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Tomasz Pik wrote:
>
>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> >
>> > I figured the munging would be unlikely to pass muster. The easy
>solution
>> > is that BeanUtils/Net ar
ld have some tests to
validate any component dependencies and side effects.
Gary
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 23:26
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [combo] Commons Core
gt; Subject: Re: [combo] Commons Core release?
>
>
> Not sure. I think any combo release should be driven by a release of a
> sub-component. Versioning of the combo release gets a bit interesting
> then, probably we should have the idea of:
>
> super-major-minor-bugfix
>
>
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
"Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For those who wonder why such a combination JAR is important, please
> hang around on the user lists, not just the developer lists :-).
Aha. Okay.
Please see,
http://www.apache.org/~tetsuya/jars/
... for
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:58:45 +1000
"Vikram Goyal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -1 on any combination. Core / Combo - whatever. I think it is a bad
> > idea.
> Agree with you that it is a bad idea. Commons was supposed to be it.
> Its like trying to factor out a "Commons" out of Commons. I can
34 matches
Mail list logo
