Why implement something that's JSR175-compliant? That's gonna be part of JDK1.5 anyway. Besides it's probably not doable since it requires a language-change.
Attrib4J and JSR175 has tons of extra stuff where I've always seen commons-attributes (and Nanning) as extremely simplistic, ie named attributes whose values are strings. In my experience this has been very useful and for a very small price-tag (both when it comes to learning the API, and of course implementing it). I don't see the point of putting commons-attributes in this direction (but it's not my decision to make). Why not just do it in attrib4j which has that intent? If it necessarily has to be a Jakarta-project why not start another one? On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 14:48, Ryan Hoegg wrote: > I have e-mailed briefly with Mark Pollack of attrib4j.sourceforge.net. > It seems some work needs to be done to support JSR175 for both > commons-attributes and attrib4j. The main difference Jon and Mark have > so far is the Attribute interface, where Mark would rather not have > String properties for Name and Value. > > One interesting thing about attrib4j is that it stores its attributes in > the class file instead of a separate properties file. I think that > since the attribute storage mechanism is already abstracted in the > current commons-attributes through the DefaultAttributeFinder and > DefaultAttributeCompiler, it would make sense to agree on a common > interface and create multiple implementations. > > I am currently a committer on ws.apache.org/xmlrpc. Can I help? > > -- > Ryan Hoegg > ISIS Networks > http://www.isisnetworks.net > > Paul Hammant wrote: > > >Well I volunteer to help this get promoted out of sandbox. I've done work on it > >before (pairing > >with James Strachan - which he never committed - grumble grumble ;) > > > >Jon, that sound good to you ? > > > >- Paul > > > > --- robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i'm against nominating > >committers for work on sandbox components. > > > > > >>(apache committers should just be able to request karma and then check > >>with the current committers that it's ok to join the fun.) > >> > >>if jon is an existing apache committer then he needs to post a request to > >>the pmc cc'ing commons-dev giving some brief indications of his plans. we > >>should then be able to sort out karma with infrastructure. > >> > >>IMHO if jon is not then the best solution would be for an existing apache > >>committer to volunteer (yourself, maybe) to lead an effort to push > >>attributes forward to a stage where it's ready for promotion to the common > >>proper. > >> > >>BTW are there any copyright issues associated with the Nanning code? > >> > >>- robert > >> > >>On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 11:33 AM, Paul Hammant wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Jon has been working on attributes inside Nanning's CVS. The code we have > >>>(which is really) good > >>>is an earlier fork of that. Is there any way we can get Jon commit provs > >>>here? The version in > >>>Nanning is much more advanced than the version he donated to us earlier. > >>> > >>>If we can get some consensus, I think a vote may be a good idea. Surely > >>>he must qualify on the > >>>multi-month patch donator principle? > >>> > >>>- Paul > >>> > >>>__________________________________________________ > >>>Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience > >>>http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html > >>> > >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
