Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: ... cut ... Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then be put into the attic. ... cut ... Another project (a language binding for D-Bus) took too much time, such that I was not able to turn to BSF 2.4 this month. As I will be off for ten days I just wanted to assert that I will turn to BSF 2.4 upon return and work steadily in smaller units to incorporate the changes throughout September (the committing in commons works, I changed the version number to BSF 2.5 yesterday to indicate that there is activity :) ). ---rony P.S.: Was not sure where to post this, so I turned to this list. What would be the correct list for BSF related mails in the future? Sorry, missed this. Mailing lists for BSF are now: d...@commons.apache.org u...@commons.apache.org See the following page on Lang: http://commons.apache.org/lang/mail-lists.html Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
... cut ... Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then be put into the attic. ... cut ... Another project (a language binding for D-Bus) took too much time, such that I was not able to turn to BSF 2.4 this month. As I will be off for ten days I just wanted to assert that I will turn to BSF 2.4 upon return and work steadily in smaller units to incorporate the changes throughout September (the committing in commons works, I changed the version number to BSF 2.5 yesterday to indicate that there is activity :) ). ---rony P.S.: Was not sure where to post this, so I turned to this list. What would be the correct list for BSF related mails in the future? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On 7 August 2011 18:11, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone started committing a few patches in July). I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC. Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it. +1 Could one of you propose that to Commons? Dear Sebb, would you be so kind (I think you have been active in Commons already, whereas I have not)? Vote is currently underway. ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] JMeter TLP (was: Activity of Jakarta subprojects)
Hello, I'm agree, JMeter has acquired a very good maturity for his works (load tests in particular) and a TLP will give more visibility to JMeter. It's a good thing for all people who uses this tool to performs a load test. I suppose that become a TLP need some works on a website/svn asf? I can help to do this. Milamber Le 07/08/2011 17:00, Rahul Akolkar a ecrit : [please include general@ on all replies] Thats reasonable, and I do think JMeter has enough going on to become a TLP. Not to get too far ahead, but initial PMC would include active devs ofcourse (sebb,milamber) and we should be able to round up enough others with interest (olegk,rahul,bayard and other probables). Comments? Lets say a week for comments before next step. -Rahul On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 20:50 -0400, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rahul Akolkar rahul.akol...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote: ... * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Or perhaps join HttpComonents? I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols). The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between JMeter and HttpComponents. Cool, so next step -- either of you (sebb/olegk) want to check with the HttpComponents PMC if there is consensus on that? snip/ Don't see anything on above in hc archives, unless I missed it. Want me to broach the topic ;-? -Rahul Rahul Taking JMeter to HC should be the latest resort, only if JMeter is unable to gather enough support to become a TLP of its own. A possibility of JMeter going TLP should be discussed first, in my opinion. Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@jakarta.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
[PROPOSAL] JMeter TLP (was: Activity of Jakarta subprojects)
[please include general@ on all replies] Thats reasonable, and I do think JMeter has enough going on to become a TLP. Not to get too far ahead, but initial PMC would include active devs ofcourse (sebb,milamber) and we should be able to round up enough others with interest (olegk,rahul,bayard and other probables). Comments? Lets say a week for comments before next step. -Rahul On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 20:50 -0400, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rahul Akolkar rahul.akol...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote: ... * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Or perhaps join HttpComonents? I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols). The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between JMeter and HttpComponents. Cool, so next step -- either of you (sebb/olegk) want to check with the HttpComponents PMC if there is consensus on that? snip/ Don't see anything on above in hc archives, unless I missed it. Want me to broach the topic ;-? -Rahul Rahul Taking JMeter to HC should be the latest resort, only if JMeter is unable to gather enough support to become a TLP of its own. A possibility of JMeter going TLP should be discussed first, in my opinion. Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone started committing a few patches in July). I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC. Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it. +1 Could one of you propose that to Commons? Dear Sebb, would you be so kind (I think you have been active in Commons already, whereas I have not)? ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I would like to apply them to the official 2.x. Fair enough request. Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we: * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF. * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons? * Move to the Attic. --- How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is to say Game Over. If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project. Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily findable and downloadable. --- Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs Is it alive though? No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building, but no answer. 3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff, especially if there is a plan for a 3.2. (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with Java 1.6 in that area as well). Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone started committing a few patches in July). I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 20:50 -0400, Rahul Akolkar wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rahul Akolkar rahul.akol...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote: ... * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Or perhaps join HttpComonents? I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols). The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between JMeter and HttpComponents. Cool, so next step -- either of you (sebb/olegk) want to check with the HttpComponents PMC if there is consensus on that? snip/ Don't see anything on above in hc archives, unless I missed it. Want me to broach the topic ;-? -Rahul Rahul Taking JMeter to HC should be the latest resort, only if JMeter is unable to gather enough support to become a TLP of its own. A possibility of JMeter going TLP should be discussed first, in my opinion. Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On 6 August 2011 08:40, Henri Yandell bay...@generationjava.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I would like to apply them to the official 2.x. Fair enough request. Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we: * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF. * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons? * Move to the Attic. --- How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is to say Game Over. If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project. Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily findable and downloadable. --- Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs Is it alive though? No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building, but no answer. 3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff, especially if there is a plan for a 3.2. (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with Java 1.6 in that area as well). Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone started committing a few patches in July). I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC. Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On 06.08.2011 18:41, sebb wrote: On 6 August 2011 08:40, Henri Yandell bay...@generationjava.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I would like to apply them to the official 2.x. Fair enough request. Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we: * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF. * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons? * Move to the Attic. --- How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is to say Game Over. If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project. Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily findable and downloadable. --- Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs Is it alive though? No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building, but no answer. 3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff, especially if there is a plan for a 3.2. (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with Java 1.6 in that area as well). Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone started committing a few patches in July). I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC. Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it. +1 ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 06.08.2011 18:41, sebb wrote: On 6 August 2011 08:40, Henri Yandell bay...@generationjava.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I would like to apply them to the official 2.x. Fair enough request. Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we: * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF. * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons? * Move to the Attic. --- How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is to say Game Over. If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project. Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily findable and downloadable. --- Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs Is it alive though? No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building, but no answer. 3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff, especially if there is a plan for a 3.2. (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with Java 1.6 in that area as well). Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone started committing a few patches in July). I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC. Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it. +1 Could one of you propose that to Commons? Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rahul Akolkar rahul.akol...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote: ... * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Or perhaps join HttpComonents? I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols). The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between JMeter and HttpComponents. Cool, so next step -- either of you (sebb/olegk) want to check with the HttpComponents PMC if there is consensus on that? snip/ Don't see anything on above in hc archives, unless I missed it. Want me to broach the topic ;-? -Rahul -Rahul Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I would like to apply them to the official 2.x. Fair enough request. Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we: * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF. * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons? * Move to the Attic. --- How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is to say Game Over. If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project. Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily findable and downloadable. --- Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alife as it implements the JSR-223 specs (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with Java 1.6 in that area as well). ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I would like to apply them to the official 2.x. ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I would like to apply them to the official 2.x. Fair enough request. Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we: * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF. * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons? * Move to the Attic. --- How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is to say Game Over. If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
Forwarding below to dev@ and private@ for increased awareness. Replies to original thread on general@ please. -Rahul On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Henri Yandell he...@yandell.org wrote: Thought I'd summarize the current activity of the subprojects: * Cactus: No code commits since February 2009. Weak activity between 2006 and 2009. I think Cactus should head to the Attic. * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Henri Yandell bay...@generationjava.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu-wien.ac.at wrote: On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote: * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF. There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x. Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs. Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223 environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I would like to apply them to the official 2.x. Fair enough request. Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we: * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF. * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons? * Move to the Attic. snip/ I don't think Jakarta should/will exist for much longer, so first bullet isn't an option. Or, put differently, if that is the preferred option, then we should rather get a BSF TLP. -Rahul --- How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is to say Game Over. If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Activity of Jakarta subprojects
Thought I'd summarize the current activity of the subprojects: * Cactus: No code commits since February 2009. Weak activity between 2006 and 2009. I think Cactus should head to the Attic. * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
... * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Or perhaps join HttpComonents? I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols). The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between JMeter and HttpComponents. Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote: ... * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Or perhaps join HttpComonents? I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols). The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between JMeter and HttpComponents. Sounds like an excellent idea to me. +1. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Henri Yandell he...@yandell.org wrote: Thought I'd summarize the current activity of the subprojects: snip/ Thanks for getting this thread going Hen, I had thoughts of starting a similar thread this weekend, given we're almost done with the BCEL and JCS moves. -Rahul * Cactus: No code commits since February 2009. Weak activity between 2006 and 2009. I think Cactus should head to the Attic. * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb. A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more chance of activity. * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski ol...@apache.org wrote: ... * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010. This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active. Or perhaps join HttpComonents? I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols). The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between JMeter and HttpComponents. snip/ Cool, so next step -- either of you (sebb/olegk) want to check with the HttpComponents PMC if there is consensus on that? -Rahul Oleg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@jakarta.apache.org
