> Hmm... looks like... most're intersted in some uri encoding methods. (at > least in the mailing list) > However, I will say that URI is generally a parser for some purposes with > having some coder feature. > > As I look into Commons-Codec, well... bula...bula... > And I think it's not a right choice. (I guess, probably they wouldn't think > either)
Sung-Gu, What do you mean by "As I look into Commons-Codec, well... bula...bula..."? Undoubtedly, URI specification doesn't belong to Commons-Codec. No one has ever suggested otherwise. The idea is to factor out only URL encoding/decoding logic that clearly does. > > 2) URI specification by itself is just one class. It hardly makes any > sense in my opinion to make a package out of it, even though URI class is > clearly useful beyond HttpClient. > > If you want make an jar, you'd better setup the build.xml when you tar it... This is not just about creating a separate jar file with URI spec implementation. The initial idea was to create Commons-URI sub-project out of existing URI spec implementation in HttpClient. However, as many pointed out, the overhead of maintaining a full fledged Jakarta Commons sub-project around what is essentially one class would be simply too much. This said, if you can write a proposal for Commons-URI sub-project and make a convincing case to the rest of the Jakarta Commons community, we will whole-heartedly support you. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
