On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Matt!!! > I always appreciate a feedback from you! I just implemented a spike on > my local workspace so I still don't have idea if the API beakage will > be so deep, I'll wait for more feedbacks before creating the sandbox, > to see if there are objections. BTW thanks a lot for your thoughts and > contribution! <snip/>
As I said elsethread, no objections at all for a sandbox spike (how could there be any :-). -Rahul > Moreover you too indirectly inspired me to start this work, when you > started implementing the new proxy features, with the static type safe > DSL :P > Have a nice day, all the best, > Simo :) > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Speaking as a non-user of Digester, it would seem that as long as a new >> version can process the same XML configs, and retains the ability to plug >> in/adapt extensions written against v2, breakage of other APIs (which should >> be minimal in such a library) isn't terribly important. Again, this is >> spoken from a position of ignorance, so feel free to tell me how and why I'm >> wrong. >> >> $0.02, >> Matt >> >> On Jan 24, 2011, at 4:01 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >> >>> That's very good Rahul, >>> being yourself also a Digester users, it should be easier for me >>> having you to give a guideline :) >>> Have a nice day! >>> Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:08 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Simone Tripodi >>>> <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> Hi Rahul! :) >>>>> good point, I think that this is yet another good reason to work on >>>>> sandbox before, I'll try to stay close as much as possible to the >>>>> current Digester concept, my idea/purpose/intensions are providing a >>>>> new Digester and not replacing it. >>>> <snip/> >>>> >>>> Great, lets put ourselves in the shoes of existing digester users >>>> (indeed, I am one). >>>> >>>> If that doesn't sound like fun, the rewrite can always be proposed as >>>> a new component :-) >>>> >>>> -Rahul >>>> >>>> >>>>> Of course, suggestions/participation/feedbacks/guidelines are always >>>>> accepted, many thanks in advance!!! >>>>> Simo >>>>> >>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Simone Tripodi >>>>>> <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Rahul!!! :) >>>>>>> thanks for your feedbacks!!! this time I would like to experiment in >>>>>>> the sandbox an almost complete rewrite of Digester, simplifying the >>>>>>> actual design centralizing the configuration - and loosing >>>>>>> retro-compatibility. Moreover I would like doing a strong code >>>>>>> polishing, removing deprecated APIs at first stage. >>>>>>> >>>>>> <snip/> >>>>>> >>>>>> If we're losing compatibility in the core component APIs due to a >>>>>> major rewrite, it may be better as a new component rather than the >>>>>> next major release. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Rahul >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The idea can, of course, be ported also on the current Digester >>>>>>> implementation, so once the sandbox will be completed we could apply >>>>>>> the new feature also on 2.X and at the same time think about a >>>>>>> possible 3.X. >>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>> Have a nice day, all the best, >>>>>>> Simo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Rahul Akolkar >>>>>>> <rahul.akol...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Simone Tripodi >>>>>>>> <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi all guys, >>>>>>>>> I would like to propose a new sandbox to experiment a fresh, >>>>>>>>> different, new set of Digester APIs that strongly uses a DSL for rules >>>>>>>>> configuration. >>>>>>>>> As described in the original proposal[1], the idea comes from a James >>>>>>>>> Carman's comment on an old Digester issue, so his >>>>>>>>> help/guidance/mentoring would be more than appreciated. >>>>>>>>> Please cast your vote, if there are no objections I would like to >>>>>>>>> start this work in the sandbox and try to promote as TLP with your >>>>>>>>> help/mentoring/involvement. >>>>>>>> <snip/> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This would be in addition to the existing digester APIs? I think we >>>>>>>> want to be compatible so don't know if it makes sense to remove/change >>>>>>>> existing APIs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The sandbox is always open for experimentation, no objections there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Rahul >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I really hope this could be point of your interest that makes you >>>>>>>>> curious enough to participate! >>>>>>>>> Have a nice day, all the best, >>>>>>>>> Simo >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/5ry2lmfkpxkrqwh6 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>>>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
