The proposal looks good to me. I think we are ready for a vote.
Mike
On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:25 PM, Adrian Sutton wrote:
Hi all,
Are there any further comments on this or are we ready to put it to a
vote?
I have not had any response from any of the inactive committers and
figure a
week is lon
Hi all,
Are there any further comments on this or are we ready to put it to a vote?
I have not had any response from any of the inactive committers and figure a
week is long enough to wait. They can of course be reinstated as a
committer at any time in the future by just requesting it (and sortin
Oleg wrote:
> I really think Java 1.3 does not bring anything
> to the table as far as HTTP communication is concerned.
Ok, I agree. Just wanted to make sure we didn't miss a chance.
cheers,
Roland
ve liked to use
some 1.3 functionality? Improved collection
classes or so?
cheers,
Roland
Adrian Sutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18.03.2004 13:27
Please respond to "Commons HttpClient Project"
To: Commons HttpClient Project
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:
Thu 3/18/2004 13:51
To: Commons HttpClient Project
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][DRAFT] Promote HttpClient to Jakarta level
Hello Adrian,
there is reflections stuff in:
HttpConnection -> check for 1.3
HttpException -> check for 1.4
util/ExceptionUtil -> check for 1.4
Yo
uot;Commons HttpClient Project"
To: Commons HttpClient Project
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject:Re: [PROPOSAL][DRAFT] Promote HttpClient to
Jakarta level
On 18/3/04 10:24 PM, "Roland Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (1
Commons HttpClient Project
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][DRAFT] Promote HttpClient to
Jakarta level
On 18/3/04 10:24 PM, "Roland Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (1.5) Interaction With Other Packages
>>
>> Htt
On 18/3/04 10:24 PM, "Roland Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (1.5) Interaction With Other Packages
>>
>> HttpClient relies on:
>>
>> * Java Development Kit (Version 1.2 or later; 1.3 or later recommended)
>
> I wonder whether this would be the right time
> to drop support for JDK 1.2 and r
> (1.5) Interaction With Other Packages
>
> HttpClient relies on:
>
> * Java Development Kit (Version 1.2 or later; 1.3 or later recommended)
I wonder whether this would be the right time
to drop support for JDK 1.2 and require 1.3 ?
cheers,
Roland
Hi all,
Here's the updated proposal as promised. A change log is below:
* Removed Sean C. Sullivan and Sung-Gu from the list of committers due to
them not having a CLA on file. The email address for both these people is
their @apache.org address. I've attempted to contact them at those
addresse
On 18/3/04 12:54 AM, "Jeff Dever" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just the active ones. You must leave off Sun-gu and Sean, since they
> don't have CLA on file their committer status has been suspended. I
> agree with Oleg about the handling of the others.
Sounds good to me. I'll take care of cha
Just the active ones. You must leave off Sun-gu and Sean, since they
don't have CLA on file their committer status has been suspended. I
agree with Oleg about the handling of the others.
-jsd
Should all the committers come across or just the currently active ones? I
think this should be all
Sweet!! Thank you for getting started on this. Definitely no toes
being stepped on here.
I would like to echo Oleg and Roland's comments. In particular I think
having separate user and dev mailing lists in a good idea. Given that,
CVS logs should probably just go to dev.
In the "(1.5) Inte
Hi Adrian
> Should we create a separate dev and user mailing list?
> If not should we just have a [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list or a
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list?
I think we should have separate httpclient-dev and httpclient-user lists. It is a
common practice for many (if not all) Jakart
Hello Adrian,
I'd add at least RFC 2965: Http State Management (Cookies)
to the scope. The biggest problems I had with HttpClient is
that the cookie functionality is an almost inseparable part,
whereas I needed HTTP without the cookie stuff. I feel it is
important to distinguish the cookie handlin
15 matches
Mail list logo
