On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
Ralph
tag:
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[X] -1 no, do not release it because...
The code has a dependency on Commons NET 2.0, which requires Java 1.5+
However VFS
On 5 November 2010 09:49, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[X] -1 no, do not release it because...
The code has a dependency
I do not think we can help you to debug your source code, but you can give
us some detail questions in your project, may be we can help you. In fact,
as Rahul told you, you can visit our Visual SCXML editor web site first,
maybe you can use our source code, or even improve it
2010/11/5 Bilel
On 4 November 2010 22:18, Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org wrote:
Modified:
commons/proper/math/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math/util/MathUtils.java
URL:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:00 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
Ralph
tag:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 3:03 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 09:49, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[X] -1 no, do not
Hi.
[...]
What about new code? With the current signature and documentation
there is no information on possible exception conditions. The fact
the method will throw an exception on failure needs to be
expressed.
[...]
The fact is: You don't know whether an exception
On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[X] -1 no, do not release it because...
The code has a dependency on Commons
Hi Gilles, and sorry for mistyping your name in my previous message,
- Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org a écrit :
Hi.
[...]
What about new code? With the current signature and
documentation
there is no information on possible exception conditions. The
fact
- Henri Yandell flame...@gmail.com a écrit :
Though depends on what you're submitting. JIRA issues, no worries.
Just hit the checkbox each time you add a patch.
If you become a committer, or if you're submitting something large,
then we will ask you to sign an ICLA.
When signing an
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1417projectId=65
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Fri 5 Nov 2010 13:38:23 +
Finished at: Fri 5 Nov 2010 13:42:43 +
Total time: 4m 20s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Online report :
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/buildResult.action?buildId=1421projectId=97
Build statistics:
State: Failed
Previous State: Failed
Started at: Fri 5 Nov 2010 14:26:26 +
Finished at: Fri 5 Nov 2010 14:30:40 +
Total time: 4m 13s
Build Trigger: Schedule
Luc,
[...]
There are at least 2 different issues:
1. What is the recommended behaviour of implementations
2. What CM will do when it calls value and catches an exception
There is a third issue, and it was a driver for the current architecture.
Some CM algorithms are utilities that
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a
documentation issue. User's can pick and choose which providers they want
and simply need to be aware that Net 2.0 requires 1.5.
The providers
Hi James,
James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a
documentation issue. User's can pick and choose which providers they
want and simply need to be aware that Net 2.0
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
This is not the point. If they add net 2.0 to the classpath they are using
Java 5 probably anyway. The interesting quesiton is, what happens if net 1.4
is on the classpath? I'd guess the provider is also
On Nov 5, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi James,
James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a
documentation issue. User's can pick and choose which
On 5 November 2010 15:30, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[X] -1
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:10 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
If so, what about someone using Java 1.4 - can they update to VFS 2.0,
but keep the FTP support from NET 1.4?
Or will they lose FTP support entirely?
FTP support works without Net at all. I just ran a test client and
excluded
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:22 PM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
FTP support works without Net at all. I just ran a test client and
excluded anything but the core from the classpath. It used the
org.apache.commons.vfs.provider.url.UrlFileSystem to handle FTP URLs.
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:10 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 15:30, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1
Ralph Goers wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi James,
James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a
documentation issue. User's can pick
- Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org a écrit :
Hello.
So go ahead with the change, removing the throws from the
declaration but keeping the javadoc as suggested previously.
Again, what is it that you try to convey by specifying a single
exception in
the Javadoc?
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
also?
+1! Quit living in the past. Of course, we then have to discuss the
package name (and thus artifact id) change. :)
I disagree that this is a blocker. This *might* be a documentation
issue that the FTP and FTPS providers require Java 1.5. Everything
else is just fine and usable.
On a side note: Everything but Java 6 has been EOLed. I would be
perfectly cool for all new components to be implicit runs only on
I disagree with this. The tests run a little but almost no one will
ever run them. Shipping a 3MB file that is used with one test in the
whole distribution seems to be a waste of space and bandwidth for
everyone else.
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 06:03, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 November
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
If NET 2.0 is truly optional, then it is not a blocker so long as it
is clearly documented.
I assume that NET 2.0 was added in order to support FTPS?
I have no idea. You did the update from 1.4.1 to 2.0 in 999496
I don't know if it's relevant here, but it's standard practice in
lots
of code I've seen to document unchecked exceptions in the @throws
block if your code explicitly throws it.
This would be the minimum, but it seems that CM tries to be better in
that
it aims at also
I like that idea. A lot. +1
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
also?
- Jörg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
I read all the concerns and comments and I believe that the
commons-net thing is a documentation issue. People who still use Java
1.4 today should probably know what they do when they upgrade a major
version changed new release of an API.
So my vote is +1 to release VFS as tagged and put there.
-Original Message-
From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:henn...@schmiedehausen.org]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 09:46
To: Commons Developers List; joerg.schai...@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons VFS 2.0
I like that idea. A lot. +1
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at
On 5 November 2010 16:28, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:10 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 15:30, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the project
dependencies either.
So we should at least update the docs IMO for Java 5.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Henning Schmiedehausen
On 5 November 2010 16:43, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
If NET 2.0 is truly optional, then it is not a blocker so long as it
is clearly documented.
I assume that NET 2.0 was added in order to
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
also?
+1! Quit living in the past. Of course, we then have to discuss the
package
On 5 November 2010 16:50, Gary Gregory ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com wrote:
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the project
dependencies either.
My thoughts exactly.
So we should at least
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 09:52
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Commons VFS 2.0
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
If package names change it will require a bit of work. I'm not sure there is
anyone using 1.0. All the questions on the dev list have been for 2.0 for
quite some time.
I'm using 1.x in our project I believe,
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
Interestingly enough, the program fails when I put net 1.4.1 on the
classpath with:
Exception in thread main
org.apache.commons.vfs.FileNotFoundException: Could not read from
At this point is that just a web site change (post release)? Do we have to
change the package names and re-release?
Ralph
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
I like that idea. A lot. +1
-h
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
On 5 November 2010 16:51, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
As alternative: Can't we simply raise the minimum JDK level for VFS to 1.5
also?
+1! Quit
Hi Gilles,
- Gilles Sadowski gil...@harfang.homelinux.org a écrit :
Luc,
[...]
There are at least 2 different issues:
1. What is the recommended behaviour of implementations
2. What CM will do when it calls value and catches an exception
There is a third issue, and it
On 5 November 2010 16:56, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
At this point is that just a web site change (post release)? Do we have to
change the package names and re-release?
Why change package names? Surely the API is compatible? If not, then a
name change may be advisable even
xfer to dev distro =)
On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:23 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
wrote:
The challenge with making a smart pool implementation is that it is hard
to
define an algorithm that does no
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:57 AM, sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 16:51, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:36 AM, James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de
wrote:
As alternative: Can't we simply raise the
Ralph Goers wrote:
At this point is that just a web site change (post release)? Do we have
to change the package names and re-release?
No. VFS itself is backward compatible, we cannot really check every time any
dependency - even if it is another commons dependency. So site update is
still
Gary Gregory wrote:
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the
project dependencies either.
So we should at least update the docs IMO for Java 5.
+1
Not a blocker though.
However, it seems
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Why change package names? Surely the API is compatible? If not, then a
name change may be advisable even if staying with Java 1.4.
Seems reasonable to me, but the question to be asked is, why do we
jump to 2.0 here? Is there really
On 5 November 2010 17:11, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Gary Gregory wrote:
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the
project dependencies either.
So we should at least update the
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not possible currently to compile the core code using Java 1.4.
Since we ship source, I think this is a blocker.
And, it's easy to fix, so why not just cut a new RC?
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Do you also try 2.2-SNAPSHOT ?
When I look at http://commons.apache.org/net/changes-report.html and
http://commons.apache.org/net/clirr-report.html it seems that 2.2 is again
not really binary compatible anymore.
It
On 5 November 2010 17:15, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
Interestingly enough, the program fails when I put net 1.4.1 on the
classpath with:
Exception in thread main
On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:20 AM, James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:18 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not possible currently to compile the core code using Java 1.4.
Since we ship source, I think this is a blocker.
And, it's easy to fix, so why not just cut a new RC?
sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 17:11, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Gary Gregory wrote:
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of the project. It's not even in the
project dependencies either.
So we should at
James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Why change package names? Surely the API is compatible? If not, then a
name change may be advisable even if staying with Java 1.4.
Seems reasonable to me, but the question to be asked is, why do we
jump to
On 5 November 2010 17:36, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 17:11, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Gary Gregory wrote:
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of the project.
sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 17:36, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 5 November 2010 17:11, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Gary Gregory wrote:
One thing that drives me nuts is that most project do not list the JRE
requirements on the front page of
Ralph Goers wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
[ ] +1 release it
[ ] +0 go ahead I don't care
[ ] -1 no, do not release it because...
I've build the artifacts from the distributed src tarball and it went fine
(incl. tests) with my compiler zoo for all compilers (Java
I think I'll add another standard descriptor to the default bundle,
and then projects can opt for the tar.gz simply by setting a property.
I'm hesitant to start causing all projects to generate two copies of
the source archives by default, since many of them seem happy with
just a zip.
On Thu,
If we do require a minimum of Java 1.5 for VFS 2.0, we probably also
need to ensure that the code compiles without warnings on Java 1.5.
This would mean adding @Override etc. annotations and generics.
Thoughts?
-
To
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:16, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
If we do require a minimum of Java 1.5 for VFS 2.0, we probably also
need to ensure that the code compiles without warnings on Java 1.5.
This would mean adding @Override etc. annotations and generics.
Thoughts?
+1 but not a blocker
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:15 PM, sebb wrote:
If we do require a minimum of Java 1.5 for VFS 2.0, we probably also
need to ensure that the code compiles without warnings on Java 1.5.
This would mean adding @Override etc. annotations and generics.
Thoughts?
While that would be a good thing
I added the 3MB file to the test-data directory, so createLargeFile normally
won't run.
Are there any more changes? I'm ready to try the release again.
Ralph
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:26 PM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sebb
Date: Fri Nov 5 19:26:06 2010
New Revision: 1031735
URL:
On 5 November 2010 19:32, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I added the 3MB file to the test-data directory, so createLargeFile normally
won't run.
Someone complained about adding that amount of test data, so I thought
I'd fix it another way.
Still safer though not to create a 3GB
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
The first release in 4 years? ;-)
We had the discussion for io 2.0 and therefore vfs 2.0 is fine for me also.
We have new providers and a lot of closed JIRA issues.
That's not enough to merit a major version jump,
You weren't fast enough :-) I started rerunning the release already. Gotta
leave for the airport in 30 mins.
I've rerun the build several times already without problems.
The versions and upgrading JUnit can be done for the next release.
Ralph
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:47 PM, sebb wrote:
On 5
On Nov 5, 2010, at 12:53 PM, James Carman wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
The first release in 4 years? ;-)
We had the discussion for io 2.0 and therefore vfs 2.0 is fine for me also.
We have new providers and a lot of closed JIRA issues.
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
Simply bumping the JDK requirement is enough to go from 1.x to 2.x IMO.
Again, I'm going to harp on the consistency factor. If we go to 2.0
without changing artifactId and package, then future releases will be
On 5 November 2010 20:00, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
wrote:
Simply bumping the JDK requirement is enough to go from 1.x to 2.x IMO.
Again, I'm going to harp on the consistency factor. If we go to
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:04 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
I just don't think the need for consistency has been agreed.
Not by all, no.
I suggest you create a Wiki with the arguments so far (as I have
started for Maven groupId)
We need to come to a consensus about this JDK version
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
Since the last candidate the jdk version has been changed to 1.5 and the
requirement has been added to the web site main page. The test file for
LargeTarTestCase has been added to the test-data directory, greatly improving
the build time. Many
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0.
Since the last candidate the jdk version has been changed to 1.5 and the
requirement has been added to the web site main page. The test file for
LargeTarTestCase
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-vfs has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
Hello.
[...]
Of course, I didn't overlook that you just ask for a
@throws FunctionEvaluationException when the evaluation failed.
Javadoc comment.
I'm just reluctant to publicize a guideline that is not adhered to in CM!
Whenever a method is passed an argument that doesn't fulfill
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-jelly-tags-quartz has an issue affecting its community
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
77 matches
Mail list logo
