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
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
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 dwo...@apache.org wrote:
I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera,
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:
On 26 Feb 2010, at 19:01
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
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
On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
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
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
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 dwo...@apache.org wrote:
I'm open to suggestions BeanValidation, OpenValidation, Validera, ...
Any of those work for me, though
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, 2010
+1 (non-binding).
OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
Thanks;
--Gurkan
2010/2/23 Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org
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
:-) that's OK, but somehow I like more fancy names.
-M
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu
cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 (non-binding).
OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
Thanks;
--Gurkan
2010/2/23 Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org
Given the lack of response on
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
cgurkanerdo...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 (non-binding).
OpenBeanValidation as a name will be cool :)
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
+1
Martijn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
+1
(non-binding)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Martijn Dashorst
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
Martijn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
, 24.2.2010:
Von: Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean
Validation
An: general@incubator.apache.org, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de
Datum: Mittwoch, 24. Februar, 2010 04:22 Uhr
+1 to accept Validation into
the Incubator
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 br...@apache.org 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
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'd agree that a fair amount of community
+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 Incubator
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 the following sums
up where we landed on that issue
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 you're
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 codebase
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com 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
+1
Niall
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:51:35 -0500
Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
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
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
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
[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
Validation Specification
+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
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
On 02/23/2010 06:19 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
+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
On Feb 23, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Nick Kew wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:57:33 -0500
Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
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 dwo...@apache.org wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:57 AM, Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
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 dwo...@apache.org wrote:
Given the lack of response on the proposal and the push from our
champion to get moving
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 Woods
+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 dwo...@apache.org wrote:
We're leaving the
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
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
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
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com 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
- Original Message
From: Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
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
From: Phil Steitz
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 basically a
- Original Message
From: Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com
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:
As I said, we
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 patches to
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: ant elder antel...@apache.org
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
- Original Message
From: Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
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
From: ant elder
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
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
From
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Wed, December 30, 2009 1:30:13 PM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Validation incubator for JSR-303 Bean Validation
- Original Message
From: Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
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
From: Phil Steitz
Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com
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
From
+1
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org 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
It's related. Commons are sponsoring this incubation.
Hen
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org 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
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton
niall.pember...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: ant elder antel...@apache.org
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: Niall Pemberton niall.pember...@gmail.com
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
] Validation incubator 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
From: Donald Woods dwo...@apache.org
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
Commons PMC to sponsor
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
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
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 dwo...@apache.org
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
68 matches
Mail list logo
