On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> I've uploaded the incoming agimatec-validation source contribution to my
> home directory on people -
> /home/dwoods/agimatec-validation-0.9.6-src.tar.gz
>
> -Donald
I have created a main JIRA with various subtasks to o handle
Validation po
I've uploaded the incoming agimatec-validation source contribution to my
home directory on people -
/home/dwoods/agimatec-validation-0.9.6-src.tar.gz
-Donald
On 3/1/10 10:20 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> The vote passes with the following +1 votes:
> Craig Russell, Alan Cabrera, Luciano Resend
Already done, unless there is something I missed...
http://old.nabble.com/-VOTE---PROPOSAL--Validation-incubator-for-JSR-303-Bean-Validation-to27705544.html#a27751839
-Donald
On 3/2/10 3:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>>
>&g
On Feb 26, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> On 26 Feb 2010, at 19:01, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
>>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera
The vote passes with the following +1 votes:
Craig Russell, Alan Cabrera, Luciano Resende,
Matthias Wessendorf, Jean-Frederic Clere,
Martijn Dashorst, Mark Struberg, Kevan Miller,
James Carman, Niall Pemberton, Bill Stoddard
Voting 0 or no vote specified:
Nick Kew (recended his initial -
Thanks Matthias and I've added you as a mentor.
-Donald
On 2/23/10 10:22 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> +1 to accept Validation into the Incubator
>
> afterwards we still can see where it actually ends up
>
> however I for sure want to see this at Apache.
>
> If you guys need a champion or
On 26 Feb 2010, at 19:01, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
>>
>> Any of those work for me, though OpenValidation
Hi Donald,
Names are a common issue to be resolved *during* incubation. See
JSecurity mail threads for a somewhat extreme example.
So, no, don't restart the vote.
Craig
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given the feedback so far, I'm leaning towards BeanValidation as the
n
Given the feedback so far, I'm leaning towards BeanValidation as the
name and BVAL as the short name (for JIRA and mailing lists), since this
is a new codebase and not a natural follow-on to Common Validator 1.x.
There are features in Validator 1.x that will probably never be
implemented in this co
On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
> Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
>
> Any of those work for me, though OpenValidation has a hint of the
> same problem. BeanValidation might be
On 2/23/10 10:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
sponsored by the Incubator PMC for a new Validation po
The proposal says that this will take over for Commons Validator. Why
are we still discussing names? We already have one, Commons
Validator.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
> 2
:-) that's OK, but somehow I like more fancy names.
-M
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu
wrote:
> +1 (non-binding).
>
> OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
>
> Thanks;
>
> --Gurkan
>
> 2010/2/23 Donald Woods
>
>> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push fro
+1 (non-binding).
OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
Thanks;
--Gurkan
2010/2/23 Donald Woods
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the follow
Allow me to introduce an Arabic name, cause I really would like to see
a project in a well known open community like ASF with an Arabic name
at least for once :D.
The Arabic word for validation is "Mohaqeq", which also means to
investigate the validity of something. Thoughts ?
On Tue, Feb 23, 201
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
Donald Woods wrote:
> I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
Any of those work for me, though OpenValidation has a hint of the
same problem. BeanValidation might be ideal, and scans better than,
say JSR303-Validation :)
I'm
+1
Niall
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incuba
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Yes. That's how I view it. It's more than code clearance, however. There are
> processes for that, already. Community building is why it is starting off as
> an Incubator project. I think graduating to become Commons Validator v2 is a
> gre
On Feb 24, 2010, at 8:55 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Sorry, didn't read the proposal very closely. The idea was that it
> would be brought into Commons Validator and become the 2.x codebase.
> I like that idea and I would think it would be wise to go through the
> incubator to make sure the codeba
On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:22 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> +1 to accept Validation into the Incubator
>
> afterwards we still can see where it actually ends up
>
> however I for sure want to see this at Apache.
>
> If you guys need a champion or mentor, count me in !!
We have 3 mentors. If y
I'm +1 to bringing this into the incubator with the intention of it
becoming Apache Commons Validator 2.x (per the proposal). I'm willing
to help from the Apache Commons side of things if I can or need to.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> +1
>
> --kevan
> On Feb 23, 2010, a
ator. Why not just bring this
>> code into that project?
>
> Heh. That's been pretty well discussed, already, by both Commons and
> Incubator. You can scan the logs for details. The subject was "[PROPOSAL]
> Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation". I think t
+1
--kevan
On Feb 23, 2010, at 10:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incubat
"[PROPOSAL] Validation
incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation". I think the following sums up where we
landed on that issue (at least it pretty well sums up where I landed on the
issue):
On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:55 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> I think
We already have Apache Commons Validator. Why not just bring this
code into that project?
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> As I understand it from the proposal, they intend to be Apache Commons
> Validation.
>
> On 24/02/2010, at 4:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Fe
Nick, are you still -1 because of the name, or will you change your vote
based on Alan's comment that the name could change when it graduates?
My thinking, is that if the project graduates to Commons then it'll
naturally be Commons Validator v2, whereas if it graduates to Geronimo
it would be a Ger
Von: Matthias Wessendorf
> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean
> Validation
> An: general@incubator.apache.org, "Mark Struberg"
> Datum: Mittwoch, 24. Februar, 2010 04:22 Uhr
> +1 to accept Validation into
> the Incubator
>
>
+1
(non-binding)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> +1
>
> Martijn
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apach
+1
Martijn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
On 02/23/2010 04:57 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incubator PMC for a new Va
+1 to accept Validation into the Incubator
afterwards we still can see where it actually ends up
however I for sure want to see this at Apache.
If you guys need a champion or mentor, count me in !!
-M
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> We're leaving the TLP/sub-project d
We're leaving the TLP/sub-project decision till graduation...
-Donald
On 2/23/10 5:36 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> As I understand it from the proposal, they intend to be Apache Commons
> Validation.
>
> On 24/02/2010, at 4:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
>> Donald
As I understand it from the proposal, they intend to be Apache Commons
Validation.
On 24/02/2010, at 4:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
> Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
>> champion to get moving :-), I'll ass
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incubator PMC for
I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
-Donald
On 2/23/10 12:27 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
> On 02/23/2010 06:19 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
>> Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push
On Feb 23, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
Donald Woods wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a
vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following pr
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a
vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
sponsored by the Incub
On 02/23/2010 06:19 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
> Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
>> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>>
>> I would like to present for a vote the followin
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
Donald Woods wrote:
> Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
> champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
>
> I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
> sponsored by the Incubator PMC
+1
Go for it.
Craig
On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:57 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a
vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
sponsored by the In
> [x] +1 to accept Validation into the Incubator
(non-binding)
> [] 0 don't care
> [] -1 object and reason why.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Donald Woods
>
>
> Proposal text from the wiki
>
> Validation
>
> Abstract
>
> The Validation project will deliver an implementation of the Bean
> Validati
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving :-), I'll assume lazy consensus and call a vote.
I would like to present for a vote the following proposal to be
sponsored by the Incubator PMC for a new Validation podling. The goal
is to build a community ar
No problem. I've updated the Required Resources and Sponsoring Entity
sections and will start the vote on another thread. Thanks.
-Donald
On 2/23/10 10:00 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Thanks. I'll get with Kevan to update the proposal b
On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Thanks. I'll get with Kevan to update the proposal before we finally
> submit it for a vote.
Oops. Donald, we never synced up. My fault. Let's get this moving along.
IMO, we should structure the project as a normal incubator project, use
inc
Thanks. I'll get with Kevan to update the proposal before we finally
submit it for a vote.
-Donald
On 1/18/10 9:55 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> I think we'd agree that a fair amount of community building will be
>> required for this new codebase and group of committers
Kevan Miller wrote:
> I think we'd agree that a fair amount of community building will be
> required for this new codebase and group of committers. [However,]
> given the small makeup of the Commons Validator community, I don't
> think it's reasonable to expect the Commons community to do this
> c
On Jan 18, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Kevan,
>
>> Time to restart/finish this discussion.
>
> I agree. Seems that things have cooled off a bit.
>
>> Personally, I'd have been happy to see this move forward either way
>
>> 1) IP clearance with implementation work in Commons
>
Kevan,
> Time to restart/finish this discussion.
I agree. Seems that things have cooled off a bit.
> Personally, I'd have been happy to see this move forward either way
> 1) IP clearance with implementation work in Commons
This works only if we're dealing with a CODEBASE and an existing ASF
c
On Dec 30, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> This is not quite the scenario. We have a *dormant* component
> (validator) in Commons and a couple of ASF committers (not commons
> committers) have shown up proposing to re-write that component to
> implement the new "Bean Valiadation" sp
On Dec 31, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> Getting back to the subject, my primary objection to what's being proposed is
> that
> commons should handle this as an ip clearance, not as a project incubation.
> If
> commons insists that the individuals in question have to submit patche
- Original Message
> From: Ralph Goers
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 9:27:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
>
> On Dec 31, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> >>
On Dec 31, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> As I said, we do not have a hard and fast rule on length of time,
>> but this "nebulous notion" is what makes the ASF work.
>
> If that were true the incubator would need to be completely reworked,
> because the process we use here is basi
- Original Message
> From: Phil Steitz
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 1:54:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > - Original Message
> >
&
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> This is not quite the scenario. We have a *dormant* component
> (validator) in Commons and a couple of ASF committers (not commons
> committers) have shown up proposing to re-write that component to
> implement the new "Bean Valiadation
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I don't
> think "weeding out" those who consume more than they contribute as
> an organizing principle would work. It is certainly not the way we
> have been operating up to now at the ASF.
Yes it is. "consuming" in this context is more like
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Phil Steitz
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 3:10:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> Joe
- Original Message
> From: Phil Steitz
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 3:10:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > - Original Message
> >
&
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Phil Steitz
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Valid
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Phil Steitz
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> Joe
- Original Message
> From: Phil Steitz
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > - Original Message
> >
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: ant elder
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11,
+1
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I would like to present an incubator proposal for a new Validation podling,
> which would be a JSR-303 Bean Validation follow-on to the existing Apache
> Commons Validation 1.x project, but based on a new incoming codeb
On 12/11/09 1:14 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
I would like to present an incubator proposal for a new Validation
podling, which would be a JSR-303 Bean Validation follow-on to the
existing Apache Commons Validation 1.x project, but based on a new
incoming codebase with a software grant from Agimatec G
al Message
> From: Donald Woods
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 12:08:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
> Good points, which we discussed some on the d...@commns list before asking
> the
>
or for JSR-303 Bean Validation
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: ant elder
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009
- Original Message
> From: Niall Pemberton
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 6:29:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: ant elder
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
- Original Message
> From: ant elder
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 5:22:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
> > On F
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
>>
>> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
>> to graduate to Apache Commons and re
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder wrote:
> A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
>
> Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
> to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
> component as a new 2.0 codeb
It's related. Commons are sponsoring this incubation.
Hen
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what about the effort from the Jakarta/Commons Validator community?
> Aren't they doing that as well ? (or was it only stated to do so)?
>
> -Matthias
>
> On Fri, Dec
A quick search so there has been some discussion on commons-dev - [1]
Does this really need to be incubated - the proposal says its intended
to graduate to Apache Commons and replace the existing Validator 1.x
component as a new 2.0 codebase, from the discussion on commons-dev
everyone seems fine
Hi,
what about the effort from the Jakarta/Commons Validator community?
Aren't they doing that as well ? (or was it only stated to do so)?
-Matthias
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I would like to present an incubator proposal for a new Validation podl
Hi Donald,
just to support you in the proposal and renew my interest on that project,
I've already been added in the possible contributors lists - I already
signed and sent the Apache ICLA.
Have a nice day, best regards,
Simone
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Hello everyon
Hello everyone,
I would like to present an incubator proposal for a new Validation
podling, which would be a JSR-303 Bean Validation follow-on to the
existing Apache Commons Validation 1.x project, but based on a new
incoming codebase with a software grant from Agimatec GmbH.
The proposal is
75 matches
Mail list logo
