In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rory Winston writes:
>* You're correct that there is no inherent advantage, at least
>functionality-wise, in removing the ORO dependency. I think the major
I didn't mean to suggest that the dependency shouldn't be removed.
I was just being nitpicky and saying tha
On 1/29/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like to broaden the original [net] thread and ask how is commons
> going to handle JDK1.5? Or in the case of [net], is a JDK1.4 branch
> worthwhile?
>
> So far, commons has stuck with JDK 1.2/1.3 pretty much across the board.
> This is
I'd like to broaden the original [net] thread and ask how is commons
going to handle JDK1.5? Or in the case of [net], is a JDK1.4 branch
worthwhile?
So far, commons has stuck with JDK 1.2/1.3 pretty much across the board.
This is because
a) JDK1.4 doesn't give that many benefits over 1.3
b) a
Daniel
Thanks for the comments. A few thoughts:
* I didnt realise until you mentioned it that MatchResult was a JDK 1.5+
feature. It seems a bit short-sighted of the Sun engineers concerned not
to have included it in 1.4, especially as the rest of java.util.regex
seems to mimic ORO/Jakarta Re
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rory Winston writes:
>I think that this might be a good point to consider introducing a
>version of Commons-Net that uses JDK 1.4+ as a baseline. My reasoning is
I've long advocated branching to take advantage of JDK 1.4, but I
had a more radical agenda. I belie
Hi Rory,
i have not sufficient experience in Jakarta Commons Net, to decide or
even to talk about of this, but i would said a few things about your
reasoning...
> * FTPS support would not necessitate a separate (JSSE) jar dependency;
About dependency, i hope explain well in thread "JSSE and FTPS
Right. That is the question we have to answer.
I guess I'm okay with it but I'm not quite a +1 yet until I understand
how much work is involved. I notice a couple of the Jakarta Commons
projects do separate branches:
Collections and HttpClient. There may be others, these were just the
one
Steve
Agreed that JDK 1.3 (and previous) is still important to support. My
question is: is it desirable to put a 1.4+ version on HEAD and relegate
JDK 1.3 to a separate branch, or do we not want to get into separate
branch maintenance?
R
Steve Cohen wrote:
Rory Winston wrote:
Hi
I have
Rory Winston wrote:
Hi
I have been following the email threads re: JSSE and FTPS functionality.
I think that this might be a good point to consider introducing a
version of Commons-Net that uses JDK 1.4+ as a baseline. My reasoning is
as follows:
* We could remove the (oro) jar dependency;
Hi
I have been following the email threads re: JSSE and FTPS functionality.
I think that this might be a good point to consider introducing a
version of Commons-Net that uses JDK 1.4+ as a baseline. My reasoning is
as follows:
* We could remove the (oro) jar dependency;
* FTPS support would
10 matches
Mail list logo
