Mark R. Diggory wrote:
And, while this whole TLP movement is very "empowering", it also has the
risk of creating a lot of chaos, disorganization, and could rather
promote "anti-standardization" practices. I think the ultimate benefit
of Apache is that we're not a bunch of "Cowboy Programmers", b
On 2/2/04 7:43 PM, "Kalnichevski, Oleg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> But can we release 2.0 before we take on too much extra work? :)
>
> Hi Adrain,
>
> There's one catch. We wanted the 2.0 release to include a road map outlining
> further development plans. We need to provide the users with a
The challenge with this discussion is that it is unclear whether it
really benefits a project to be TLP'd? I would highly recommend a
conservative approach in this sort of decision making, because once
you've left jakarta, I suspect you'll get alot of flak if theres a
realization afterward that
Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote:
This also affects package naming (org.apache.commons.httpclient vs org.apache.httpclient) which in its turn affects binary compatibility with the previous releases.
Wow cool. Release now under Commons and rename packages later. This
gives us the unique opportunity to b
: Re: Promote HttpClient out of commons?
> As for supporting multiple platforms, isn't Ant a TLP and is
only
> written in Java? HttpClient is already cross-platform because
it's
> written in Java -- I don't think there's a requirement that it
be
> re-implemented
ichael Becke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 15:17
To: Commons HttpClient Project
Subject: Re: Promote HttpClient out of commons?
Eric,
These are good questions, and I think they summarize well the current
discussion.
> Should HttpClient be promoted to a Jakart
> As for supporting multiple platforms, isn't Ant a TLP and is
only
> written in Java? HttpClient is already cross-platform because
it's
> written in Java -- I don't think there's a requirement that it
be
> re-implemented in a different language for each platform.
I don't think so, either.
I t
Eric,
These are good questions, and I think they summarize well the current
discussion.
Should HttpClient be promoted to a Jakarta project?
- Yes, that would seem to make sense, given the separate mailing list,
the list of other "commons" libraries it depends upon, the separate
mailing list, a
Mike,
Various questions seemed to follow from yours:
Should HttpClient be promoted to a Jakarta project?
- Yes, that would seem to make sense, given the separate mailing list,
the list of other "commons" libraries it depends upon, the separate
mailing list, and the bugzilla needs, which all poi
h will inevitably follow the
announcement of the final release.
Cheers,
Oleg
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Sutton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 08:51
To: Commons HttpClient Project
Subject: Re: Promote HttpClient out of commons?
Howdy all,
I don't seem to hav
e promotion to TLP would be a matter of website redeployment.
Cheers,
Oleg
-Original Message-
From: Brad O'Hearne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 03:12
To: Commons HttpClient Project
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Promote HttpClient out of commons?
Hey all,
Michael Becke wrote:
In particular I would like to hear from all the regular committers,
contributors, and users. How do you think this move would effect
HttpClient's visibility, community, and organization?
I see HttpClient as a Jakarta level project. As Oleg has already stated,
its design i
Howdy all,
I don't seem to have any spare cycles for HttpClient anymore (and it does
everything we need, 100% perfectly and has done for at least 6 months) so
feel free to ignore me.
Personally, I think HttpClient needs two things in order of priority:
1. Release 2.0. It was way overdue when the
Hello folks,
after taking a look on the project list at
http://jakarta.apache.org/, I'd feel comfortable
to see the HTTP Client among them. It sure
wouldn't hurt it's visibility either.
I see two major points why it should not be
promoted to top level status. The technical
reason is the pendig AP
Another downside of top-level-hood is the overhead. Jakarta already has
a fully functional PMC and a Charter, as well as an established brand.
--
Ryan Hoegg
ISIS Networks
http://www.isisnetworks.net/
otisg wrote:
I am a HttpClient user and a Lucene committer.
I don't see any problems in HttpCli
Hey all,
I'm new to the HttpClient mailing list, but here's a couple of newbie
observations:
* Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought that TLPs were
supposed to support multiple platforms, hence their top level status.
Whereas I can certainly imagine HttpClient implemented in stra
* I can hardly think of any subproject within HttpClient project.
Ability to host sub-project within a project is one of the primary
criteria for promoting a project to the top level. I do not think we
qualify
Just as one possible subproject, I have been mulling over in my head
building a Gnutella
Otis, et al
There are several things that in my view make HttpClient not yet ready
for a full-blown TLP status:
* Please correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought that TLPs were
supposed to support multiple platforms, hence their top level status.
Whereas I can certainly imagine HttpClient im
I am a HttpClient user and a Lucene committer.
I don't see any problems in HttpClient moving out of Commons.
However, before you waste time doing that, talk to people
involved in moving projects from Jakarta and making them Top
Level Projects (TLP). Ant, Log4j, etc. have made this move, so
you may
Hello All,
There has been some discussion lately of promoting HttpClient out of
commons, making it a regular Jakarta project. Before any such move is
made we would need to come to a consensus, and vote, within the
HttpClient community. At this point I would like to encourage everyone
to put
20 matches
Mail list logo
