I noticed some projects distribute separate 'dist' and 'source' packages,
and some include the source in the dist package as well.
In some cases the 'source' included with the dist doesn't include
build.xml and the auxiliary files.
I remember many discussions on 'guideliness' for jakarta
As allways, it's easier to do than ask permission.
Since you asked, I think it's too much overhead to have a page,
but sending a mail on tomcat-dev doesn't hurt, it's quite
refreshing to know there are still companies hiring.
Costin
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
Just
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 23:30 24.05.2002 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
http://www.libertyforall.net/2002/archive/do-ocracy.html
The motivational power of appreciation cannot be underestimated. The
author is correct in emphasizing the point. What is not emphasized
enough is the
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Jeff Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.. and thankful that people like Costin persevere in spite of rather
vicious abuse.
Vicious abuse? All I am proposing is to add greater flexibility to the
freedom of those who are involved with the Jakarta
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1, its not broken, it worked. I see little reason to fix it.
It is broken. We don't allow Sally Khudairi to be a member of this
community, nor James Gonzo Todd (ex employee at Sun), to leave his
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Just need to grep the right files... You are a good committer, I see that
you have 2342 commits into the turbine CVS. Good.
I still beat you, overall I'm at 10717, Andy is at 2666 (Andy you're so
lazy), but hear hear, Costin has 25871, beating
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I respect Craig mostly for the quality of his code ( even if I prefer
different solutions and we disagree on many other things ), I respect
Sam the most for keeping a low-key as 'PMC president' ( I never saw
him use the 'I'm the PMC chair'
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Nope, we shouldn't but we should give it to those who ARE interested in the
future of Jakarta, or XML, and _do_stuff_ for those project, but are not
bound to a particular codebase. We should change our meter from being
you contribute CODE to the
That leaves me perplexed for several reasons...
First, it's the first time I see a commiter rejected - without any
reference to the quality and importance of his contribution, but some
new member's standard we don't know about. Dan put the SSI system in a
decent shape, that's similar with the
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
Right but it should be up to ya'll tomcatters to work out your standards
amonst yerselves. Thats my only issue.
Nope, because if I vote a committer in, I give him access to the Tomcat CVS
repo, but I also entitle him to vote for the friggin'
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Sam Ruby wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
If one quarter of the new commiters make 1/2 the contributions that
people
like Sam Ruby did - I'm quite happy.
As Mark Twain once said The rumors of my demise have been greatly
exaggerated.
Sorry for picking your name as
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Sam Ruby wrote:
You hadn't qualified your statement to Tomcat, and I was just teasing about
your use of past tense. ;-)
All those foreigners who can't learn the proper English grammar and
spelling :-)
* Deciding when to convert a developer into a commiter is a balance
BTW, one idea ( not mine ) would be to have a separate and private list
for each project with _only_ the comitters.
The proposals for new commiters should be done on that list, not on the
public list.
I don't know what Dan feels about this whole topic, but I wouldn't
take it very well.
-1
If someone doesn't want to be involved in the voting - he can do exaclty
that, abstain. If someone doesn't want to support a particular release -
he can abstain from the release vote( or vote +-0 ).
If you spend time and write code for a project and are willing to
maintain/support - and if
On Sat, 25 May 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
If you are a commiter - you have the same rights with all other commiters.
If you don't want to exercise some rights - it's your choice.
Hola, you tend to forget a part I'm stressing out quite hardly... It's not
only rights... It's also dues,
Is this for any vendor who wants free ads, or only for companies that
support Apache projects ( and pay the salary for apache commiters ) ?
I think it would be fair and nice if projects would include such a page
in the releases, maybe next to the list of commiters who wrote the code.
Costin
On 14 May 2002, Leo Simons wrote:
( and pay the salary for apache commiters ) ?
-1
I think it should just be a these are some companies providing
commercial support for jakarta, and there should be no more ties than
that. Gets messy to quickly. The page should reflect (thinking of an
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2002 22:13, Jeff Turner wrote:
I doubt a separate list would work. We've got an announcements@ list and
everyone still cc's announcements to general@.
Perhaps we should just adopt a simple subject line convention, [ADV] for
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2002 20:17, Danny Angus wrote:
Sometimes lists are where the activity is, commits alone don't credit the
essential design and planning effort put in by users commiters and
non-commiters that shapes the product and maps its progress.
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal
with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in
future).
So I propose that we put together a proposal for a db.apache.org. We should
I don't believe
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Bill Barker wrote:
+1
Unless Costin's proposal is to kick it up to the Apache PMC, then all the
I only made a comment that I think a larger scope for the project would
be usefull.
Many jakarta projects are out of scope ( or at least doing many things
that are hardly
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
I'll iterate : the point isn't just for it to be OJB, but to put together a
package of projects that want to do this. I think the only way for it to be
a strong apache community is if it has a large amount of apache
participation. The only way
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
They _will_ be apache people.
Of course they _will_ be apache people, but they _aren't_ now. That isn't a
bad thing, a criticism or an insult. Just recognizing the reality.
The project was aproved by the PMC - so their commiters _are_
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
well, just yesterday we had:
[daedalus] 10:56am ~ grep -c /maven/ 02
7546
Looks like the *entire* life of your project has been around 9500...
OhhA
My english vocabulary is too limited to express what I feel
reading
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
on 5/3/02 12:38 PM, Waldhoff, Rodney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't have anything against Scarab (in fact I may even prefer it), and
I've no particular love for BugZilla (in fact I don't especially like it),
but out of curiosity, how is
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
1. I'll -1 the attempt to switch any project to maven that I have a vote
on unless there is a concerted effort to collaborate on a combined
effort with centipede.
Same here, I'll -1 a switch to either maven or centipede on the projects I
have a
Jon calling me 'hypocrite'
That is a bit funny, at least after reading his arguments on this thread.
( and how this thread started, and all his actions on this subject ).
Well, as I said I will vote -1 on any switch to Maven wherever I have a
vote.
I never used ( and I don't plan to use
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael McCallum wrote:
I do that because I believe standards are essential - even if
'simpler' pet-solutions exist. Standards are the only way to
get people to work togheter - and DocBook, HTML, XSLT are
the standards.
Microsoft did not get where it was by using
On Thu, 2 May 2002, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
As I tried to point out in my parenthetical remark -- it wasn't the Maven
committers who started this whole thing ... it was our favorite iconoclast
himself (Jon), who seems to believe that anything that makes him happy
should make everybody
+1
I would go even further and propose a top level project that will
host all project-management tools, including Gump.
While gump doesn't have a very big community of developers ( I wish
I had more time), it is an essential tool for jakarta, and
I think 'it is the real thing'.
There are
Given the votes expressed so far by other jakarta commiters - I can
only vote +1.
This seems like a usefull tool ( I spent few years working on OODBs and
OQL ), with a modular design.
My only comment:
I would be much happier with a wider top-level project, where the
various db-related
Do you see crossdb as reaching the same level with tomcat or ant ? I mean
code base, users - and most important, commiters ?
While I find it usefull and probably in scope with jakarta, I wouldn't
vote +1 or even +0 for a top level project.
I would vote +1 for a jakarta-commons/ subproject.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Daniel Rall wrote:
CrossDB and Torque are entirely different layers. There's no reason
for someone to use CrossDB instead of Torque unless they're either a)
trying to avoid or circumvent O/R entirely, or b) trying to build an
O/R framework.
I think (a) is a reasonably
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Jeff Schnitzer wrote:
From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Yes, the defining advantage to the commons-logging API that I see is
that
it
allows users to adopt a single logging implementation, which confers
real
What needs to be appended to that
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
True. It does encourage it, but only initially. On the long run,
however, people will run into problems with their logging (as is
happening now). They will say this commons-logging+log4j stuff is too
complicated, we'll switch to JDK 1.4 logging, at
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 16:33 28.03.2002 -0600, you wrote:
Sun's me-too strategy is bound to fail. The question is whether the
bigger jakarta community is going to help us defeat JSR47 or stand in
the way.
That's a bit harsh, isn't it?
Hmm, maybe it is. What I
On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
The problem with logging is different because:
1) logging calls are made thousands of times so the indirection through
an equalizer API (like commons-logging) has a performance impact
Only for the logger that do not implement the interface :-) If
Ceki,
I'm not sure I understand very well this.
I think we have a consensus on few items ( and you seem to just repeat
them ):
- JDK1.4 logging is not useable as a 'standard logging API' ( even if it
is released under JCP )
- log4j is the best logger ( for Peter and few others: logkit is
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
If your library chooses to use logging API XYZ, this does not impose
XYZ to the clients of your library. Your clients can use the logging
library they prefer (if they are using logging API) and your library
can use XYZ.
And the user will have to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
At 10:15 27.03.2002 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The goal is not to be able to change the logger at compile time, but to be
able to detect the platform logger and use it. The only way to do that is
via a standard API - and commons-logging seems to be
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
So, if I understand correctly the reason for adopting commons-logging
API is for convenience rather than non-intrusiveness as a library
(with respect to logging).
The goals of commons-logging ( as I understand them ):
- non-intrusiveness
- convenience
-
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Marc Saegesser wrote:
I bought one on Monday, but I haven't had a chance to do much Java stuff
with it yet. I've just been too busy with other stuff.
I'm hoping to experiment with some more this evening. I'll post with some
details once I get something running.
I
What we must do is make sure that all the libraries implementing JCP
specs that we decide to use do get and pass their TCKs.
That includes openJMX for tomcat, probably others ( openJMX is probably
the most important for most server side projects ).
We are still in violation of the licence if
On 21 Mar 2002, Jason van Zyl wrote:
( the startup time is just amazing, you'll not realize you
run 'ant' instead of 'ls' )
I assume that ant is not made to take advantage of a multi-processor
box, (I compiled some code on a quad processor machine and ant didn't
really seem to move that
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
One other question:
Is there a valuable performance enhancement to compiling to native code with
gcj?
Right now - no, I couldn't notice any significant difference while running
tomcat. It is as fast as IBM JIT ( and faster than hotspot ).
On 19 Mar 2002, Pete Chown wrote:
Daniel Rall wrote:
Does the bytecode interpreter [from gcj] handle class loading yet?
Yes. You can invoke the bytecode interpreter directly with gij if you
don't want to compile. Gij will handle Class.forName and friends
correctly.
I actually tested
Kevin A. Burton wrote:
The big companies (Microsoft, IBM, SUN, etc) have been the ones creating the
standards. IETF, JCP, W3C, etc are all good examples.
I think you are a bit confused by the fact that everything a company does
is claimed to be 'standard, high quality, reliable, secure'
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
+1 to Sam being chair regardless of whether he wants to or not ;)
+1 - if he doesn't want it, he'll be even better for the job :-)
Costin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
on 3/14/02 7:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon, I believe their vote was to allow the proposal to move on to public
review stage. And I believe this is the _right_ thing to do.
Why bother? In other words, if after the
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Steve Downey wrote:
You chose a definition that suits your argument. In the industry, the
definition is usually more like:
I just used google.
That which is established by authority as a rule for the measure of
quantity, extent, value, or quality; esp., the original
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
Correct - but even packages that presumably have IBM (and sun?) people
working on them have questionable legalities. Take xerces (or crimson), at
one stage they included the jaxp source code and even if it doesn't anymore
it surely links against
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro wrote:
Does not the DMCA expressly prohibit reverse-engineering? Or is it just
legaleze, not applicable in the real world?
Implementing a published API/specification have nothing to do with
reverse-engineering and I don't think it is
So when someone is publishing a book he can attach a licence and restrict
the way the information in the book is used ?
We're not talking about copyrights here - this is not about redistributing
the spec - but about what you can do with what you learn by reading a
book ( or how you can
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Sam Ruby wrote:
Caldera agree with a lot of the concerns expressed by Apache. We would like to
see more to be done to protect the interests of open source providers.
Did Caldera understand what they voted for? If they agree with Apache why did
they vote yes?
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jars.html
The problem is that the list should be reversed - i.e. what licences
are _allowed_ and verified by a lawyer.
And we have 2 issues - what jars are allowed in CVS, and what jars
are allowed in the
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Peter Donald wrote:
* there is no formal syntax defined for Extension-Name or
Implementation-Vendor-Id. By convention most people use the name of the java
packages (ie reverse dns names in most cases) but this is not required.
It's a name - I don't think it needs a
56 matches
Mail list logo
