On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 19:18 -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> In terms of finding homes, I wonder if we should have a root directory under
> which we have inactive codebases. One problem would be that no PMC would be
> responsible. Or we could create a sort of reverse incubator: a curatorship,
> wh
In terms of finding homes, I wonder if we should have a root directory under
which we have inactive codebases. One problem would be that no PMC would be
responsible. Or we could create a sort of reverse incubator: a curatorship,
where no active development takes place, but where oversight exists.
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 23:07 +0100, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > DbUtils and DBCP to db.apache.org sounds like a win to me; DBCP would
> > point back to Jakarta for a dependency on [pool], but that helps to foster
> > intra-project involvement.
>
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 22:20 +0100, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
> As a side note, perhaps this is an opportunity to evaluate if there
> are better homes for some of the components ? E.g.
> betwixt/digester/jxpath could benefit from going to XML commons,
xml tends to be about nuts and bolts. not really
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 3/12/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Asking the question on commons-dev should initiate discussion with those
who care about Digester - ideally asking it here would too but they might
not
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 3/12/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Asking the question on commons-dev should initiate discussion with those
who care about Digester - ideally asking it here would too but they might
not be paying attention I guess. Waiting for every
Martin Cooper wrote:
I think this whole thing is putting the cart before the horse. You're in the
process of destroying Commons, not just dismantling it, and for no good
reason that I can see. The people involved with Digester should be the ones
to initiate a discussion about whether or not they
On 3/12/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>
> > DbUtils and DBCP to db.apache.org sounds like a win to me; DBCP
> would
> > point back to Jakarta for a dependency on [pool], but that helps to
> >>> foster intra-project involv
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
DbUtils and DBCP to db.apache.org sounds like a win to me; DBCP would
point back to Jakarta for a dependency on [pool], but that helps to
foster intra-project involvement.
Betwixt, Digester and JXPath strike me as a bit more to swallow and XML
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 12:38 -0800, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> Yes, Struts uses Digester. It also uses BeanUtils, Chain, FileUpload, IO,
> Logging and Validator.
>
> I think this whole thing is putting the cart before the horse. You're in the
>
DbUtils and DBCP to db.apache.org sounds like a win to me; DBCP would
point back to Jakarta for a dependency on [pool], but that helps to
foster intra-project involvement.
Betwixt, Digester and JXPath strike me as a bit more to swallow and XML
might not want to taking such bites. You want to go
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
>
> > On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> DbUtils and DBCP to db.apache.org sounds like a win to me; DBCP would
> >> point back to Jakarta for a dependency on [pool], but t
lease procedures etc are Jakarta-scoped and discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand this, but I wonder whether this move will have an
immediate negative effect on the other Jakarta components in terms of
developer attention both to the projects and to the users. As you say,
probably not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit on what the physical / visual-to-users
differences to the current commons, well, Jakarta sub-project will be
? Will this be a new Jakarta sub-project (and the other commons
components will remain in
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Definitely in favour of turning things like Velocity, POI, Turbine into
> groupings if at all possible. Less likely with POI I suspect. I'd hope
> that this would mean:
>
> SVN Auth - everyone in Jakarta has write permissions
> SVN structure -
Definitely in favour of turning things like Velocity, POI, Turbine into
groupings if at all possible. Less likely with POI I suspect. I'd hope
that this would mean:
SVN Auth - everyone in Jakarta has write permissions
SVN structure - jakarta/dvsl, jakarta/velocity/, jakarta/anakia (not sure
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DbUtils and DBCP to db.apache.org sounds like a win to me; DBCP would
point back to Jakarta for a dependency on [pool], but that helps to foster
intra-project involvement.
Betwixt, Digester and JXP
>From the Velocity perspective, this sounds a little like our subproject.
We've discussed this and aren't ready to move to TLP status. (we're not a
framework!). But there are a couple of different efforts under the Velocity
umbrella, specifically "Velocity Engine", "Velocity Tools", "DVSL". Mayb
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DbUtils and DBCP to db.apache.org sounds like a win to me; DBCP would
> point back to Jakarta for a dependency on [pool], but that helps to foster
> intra-project involvement.
>
> Betwixt, Digester and JXPath strike me as a bit more to swallow
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Thomas Dudziak wrote:
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a side note, perhaps this is an opportunity to evaluate if there
are better homes for some of the components ? E.g.
betwixt/digester/jxpath could benefit from going to XML commons, dbcp
and dbuti
On 3/7/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a side note, perhaps this is an opportunity to evaluate if there
> > are better homes for some of the components ? E.g.
> > betwixt/digester/jxpath could benefit from going to XML commons, dbcp
> > and dbutils from going to DB etc. ?
>
> +
such
as release procedures etc are Jakarta-scoped and discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand this, but I wonder whether this move will have an
immediate negative effect on the other Jakarta components in terms of
developer attention both to the projects and to the users. As you say,
probably not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit on what the physical / visual-to-users
differences to the current commons, well, Jakarta sub-project will be
? Will this be a new Jakarta sub-project (and the other commons
components will remain in
will be a link somewhere to each
> component, and probably a single page describing each group. Pages such
> as release procedures etc are Jakarta-scoped and discussed on [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
I understand this, but I wonder whether this move will have an
immediate negative effect on the
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit on what the physical / visual-to-users
differences to the current commons, well, Jakarta sub-project will be
? Will this be a new Jakarta sub-project (and the other commons
components will remain in the current commons one) ?
I've been trying to d
25 matches
Mail list logo
