On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 08:55, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2004, at 23:23, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 07:24, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>
>
> >> now this is sorted and the other releases i've been cutting are out of
> >> the way, i'm going to start working thr
On 28 Jul 2004, at 23:23, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 07:24, robert burrell donkin wrote:
now this is sorted and the other releases i've been cutting are out of
the way, i'm going to start working through the release plan
(http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Digester/
1_2e6_2e0
On 28 Jul 2004, at 23:23, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 07:24, robert burrell donkin wrote:
now this is sorted and the other releases i've been cutting are out of
the way, i'm going to start working through the release plan
(http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Digester/
1_2e6_2e0
On Thu, 2004-07-29 at 07:24, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2004, at 17:59, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:07:59 +1200, Simon Kitching
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 19:13, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>
>
> >> And will the Digester 1.x
On 26 Jul 2004, at 17:59, Craig McClanahan wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:07:59 +1200, Simon Kitching
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 19:13, robert burrell donkin wrote:
And will the Digester 1.x series be committed to depending on
collections, with the happy coincidence that the B
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 19:13, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> hi simon
>
> we all agree that the long term solution is to use an ArrayStack
> packaged as part of digester. in fact, if we new then what we know now
> about developing libraries, we have done this from the start.
>
> i also agree t
hi simon
we all agree that the long term solution is to use an ArrayStack
packaged as part of digester. in fact, if we new then what we know now
about developing libraries, we have done this from the start.
i also agree that it's a trick and a hack but in my mind, it's the
least worst soluti
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 15:23, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >
> > For me, the most important decision is whether to roll back Craig
> > McClanahan's changes to the ArrayStack class. Craig added a copy of
> > ArrayStack as o.a.c.d.ArrayStack, to remove the dependency on
> > commons-collections. But this
>
> For me, the most important decision is whether to roll back Craig
> McClanahan's changes to the ArrayStack class. Craig added a copy of
> ArrayStack as o.a.c.d.ArrayStack, to remove the dependency on
> commons-collections. But this creates a binary compatibility; because
> the field is protect
> personally speaking, i'd gladly support anyone who had the energy to
> push a digester 2 project forward. IMHO the digester one design has
> been pushed just about as far as it can. starting digester 2 would
> allow free refactoring without having to worry about binary
> compatibility (and d
On Mon, 2004-07-26 at 10:02, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2004, at 17:37, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:07:53 +1200, Simon Kitching
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Do you know of any containers that actually do use Digester and make
> >> it
> >> visibl
On 25 Jul 2004, at 17:37, Craig McClanahan wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:07:53 +1200, Simon Kitching
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you know of any containers that actually do use Digester and make
it
visible to containee code?
Good question.
definitely know? no
i do seem to vaguely recall that so
On 23 Jul 2004, at 00:56, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 10:09, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 22 Jul 2004, at 01:27, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 08:54, robert burrell donkin wrote:
So I'm currently in favour of upgrading the BeanUtils dependency.
However I'd like to
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:07:53 +1200, Simon Kitching
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've thought some more about this.
>
> Why exactly would a container expose Digester to the "containees"?
>
> If a container wants to use Digester to parse its configuration files,
> then that is an internal matter
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 11:56, Simon Kitching wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 10:09, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > On 22 Jul 2004, at 01:27, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 08:54, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > I'm not generally a great supporter of binary compa
On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 10:09, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2004, at 01:27, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 08:54, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
>
>
> >> one important issue are the dependencies: in particular, disposing
> >> with
> >> the commons collection dependenc
On 22 Jul 2004, at 13:51, Shapira, Yoav wrote:
Hi,
hi Yoav
My take on this is probably overly simplistic, but I'll state it
anyways:
- It Digester depends on BeanUtils at all, it should depend on the
latest version.
digester needs to depend on beanutils but we've tried to give the user
as large a
On 22 Jul 2004, at 01:27, Simon Kitching wrote:
On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 08:54, robert burrell donkin wrote:
one important issue are the dependencies: in particular, disposing
with
the commons collection dependency (which prevents compatibility with
both 2.x and 3.x).
i can see two possibilities: e
On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 08:54, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> now that the beanutils release is reaching toward completion, i'm
> turning towards the digester release. the release branch was created a
> while ago but there are still some thing which need to be decided.
Woohoo!!
>
> one important
now that the beanutils release is reaching toward completion, i'm
turning towards the digester release. the release branch was created a
while ago but there are still some thing which need to be decided.
one important issue are the dependencies: in particular, disposing with
the commons collect
20 matches
Mail list logo
