Hi all,
two weeks ago I started a vote about moving commons-sql from jakarta
commons to db. Here are the results:
+1: 9 votes
+/-0 : 0 votes
-1: 0 votes
with two remarks:
* commons-sql should not be moved into db-commons but rather be its own
project with a non-commons name (see below)
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:20:43 +0100, Thomas Dudziak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Define a name for the new db.apache.org project (see remark 1). I'd
like to name it along the lines DbUtils (which is already taken by
commons-dbutils, btw), e.g. DbSetupUtils or likewise. Suggestions are
welcome !
* Ask Infrastructure for creation of a project space (SVN space, mailing
lists, etc.) in db.apache.org, including giving commit rights to all
db.apache.org committers (if that is possible)
* Migrate the repository to the new location (e.g. cvs2svn etc.) -
perhaps infrastructure can do
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
+1..
Although I hope I can still have karma on it..
I am pretty much moving towards a big dependency on commons sql, with
almost all my projects. Since sql is a far from finished item, I only
chose it because I had the karma to actually change things that were not
+1..
Although I hope I can still have karma on it..
I am pretty much moving towards a big dependency on commons sql, with
almost all my projects. Since sql is a far from finished item, I only
chose it because I had the karma to actually change things that were not
finished (or broken).
Let me know
Hi,
[you add stuff at the bottom and I add at the top... :-) ]
[...]
I agree with a lot of your points, and disagree with a few others,
however there are two things that made me start this vote now:
As I said before: I'm +1 for moving to Apache DB. But I'd like it to go
through incubation
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
As I said before: I'm +1 for moving to Apache DB. But I'd like it to go
through incubation to get these points cleared up. I'd love to nuke
torque-gen in the long run if commons-sql evolves to be a solid
foundation for an OJB _and_ Torque code/SQL generator. So
Thomas Dudziak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In case the general vote for moving commons-sql is positive, I would
prefer to have it as a normal project (or a sandbox project if there is
something like this in db) and initially give commit rights to all OJB
and Torque committers. IMO this would
Jakarta Commons is so huge that I'd be +1 to make it a TLP.
Oliver
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:04:08 -0500, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To repeat my objections slightly more in full:
I think commons-sql should become db.apache.org/sql or some new name.
Unless there are a lot of
+1 for commons-sql to db.apache.org
Oliver
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:32:30 +0100, Thomas Dudziak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(This is a repost from a vote that I started earlier today, but where I
did not include commons-dev. This omission has been pointed out to me,
and I agree that including
Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakarta Commons is so huge that I'd be +1 to make it a TLP.
What? Jakarta-Commons or commons-sql?
+0 to jakarta-commons going TLP
-1 to commons-sql
-0 to put common-sql directly into DB
I skimmed the commons-sql code a bit and IMHO this needs
I meant +1 to jakarta-commons going TLP
Concerning incubation: Why? Which of the things that should be cleared
up while being incubated is missing in commons-sql?
Oliver
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:59:44 + (UTC), Henning P. Schmiedehausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL
Just to confuse you any further:
--- cut ---
+1 Henning Schmiedehausen
This is for the principal vote to get commons-sql into the DB project.
Personally, I'd like to see commons-sql through incubation to get the
scope of the project defined. See my other mail on the commons-dev list.
Oliver Zeigermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I meant +1 to jakarta-commons going TLP
Concerning incubation: Why? Which of the things that should be cleared
up while being incubated is missing in commons-sql?
I wrote this a bit further down:
[...]
commons-sql IMHO must show into which direction
Ooops, you indeed confuse me, but now I get it :)
However, I think the scope of the project might be defined without incubation.
Oliver
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:11:26 +0100, Henning Schmiedehausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to confuse you any further:
--- cut ---
+1 Henning
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
+1 Henning Schmiedehausen
This is for the principal vote to get commons-sql into the DB project.
Personally, I'd like to see commons-sql through incubation to get the
scope of the project defined. See my other mail on the commons-dev list.
I don't think that
Henri Yandell wrote:
To repeat my objections slightly more in full:
I think commons-sql should become db.apache.org/sql or some new name.
Unless there are a lot of components at db.apache.org; I think we
should be careful before kicking another commons repository into
action and increasing
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 17:38, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
+1 Henning Schmiedehausen
This is for the principal vote to get commons-sql into the DB project.
Personally, I'd like to see commons-sql through incubation to get the
scope of the project defined. See
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 17:38, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
+1 Henning Schmiedehausen
This is for the principal vote to get commons-sql into the DB project.
Personally, I'd like to see commons-sql through incubation to get
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Yeah, but _what_ low-level db stuff?
commons-sql has already a lot of overlap with the torque-generator. And
torque-gen contains templates for
- SQL generation (like commons-sql, but better (?) organized)
- Torque Peer and Class Source generation
- OJB Source
On 9 Dec 2004, at 17:52, Martin Cooper wrote:
snip
commons-sql must IMHO focus better. Should it be just the single set
of
beans as mentioned at the top page of the project? Or an all
enclosing
XML - SQL and back mapper? Then you definitely will touch the realm
of other XML - something mappers.
On 9 Dec 2004, at 16:09, Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
I meant +1 to jakarta-commons going TLP
an opportunity arose about a year ago but there was no general
enthusiasm. i was one of those who tried pretty hard to talk the
community into this move but i think now i understand and agree with
those
PROTECTED]; Jakarta Project Management Committee
List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Vote] Moving commons-sql to db.apache.org (repost)
(This is a repost from a vote that I started earlier today,
but where I did not include commons-dev. This omission has
been pointed out to me, and I
(This is a repost from a vote that I started earlier today, but where I
did not include commons-dev. This omission has been pointed out to me,
and I agree that including commons-dev is important, so I repost the
vote hereby)
Hi all,
I'd like to start a cross-vote (Jakarta PMC and commons-dev,
To repeat my objections slightly more in full:
I think commons-sql should become db.apache.org/sql or some new name.
Unless there are a lot of components at db.apache.org; I think we
should be careful before kicking another commons repository into
action and increasing confusion.
If the commons
PROTECTED]
Subject: [Vote] Moving commons-sql to db.apache.org (repost)
(This is a repost from a vote that I started earlier today,
but where I did not include commons-dev. This omission has
been pointed out to me, and I agree that including
commons-dev is important, so I repost the vote
Tim O'Brien wrote:
+1 for commons-sql to db.apache.org
And, I'd be +1 for moving commons-dbutils to db.apache.org
Makes perfect sense.
Alex
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Hi,
This pertains to primarily to James and Daniel but I would like to move
the commons-sql package over to db.apache.org. I'm in the process of
moving OJB and Torque over there so this is the next set of code I want
to move.
Any objections?
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
date:Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:42:24
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Re: Moving commons-sql to db.apache.org
1..
Any possibility of having commiter status for the moved commons-sql ?
I am planning on using it a lot the next few weeks
29 matches
Mail list logo
