Since the DDR Simple client was contributed and accepted by Apache as initial part of DeviceMap there is no useful path to release it under OpenDDR.org. A majority of issues were related to e.g. the domain, well that's been abandoned.
And see Volkan's request, the "new" DeviceMap Java client just like everything else (except data 1.x) was NEVER properly released under Maven either, Having a "new" client incompatible and broken under Java 8 (while the "legacy" initial donation which should have been released 2 years ago works perfectly fine under Java 8 or even 9;-) is a very big concern and does not make it look good or mature until such bugs are resolved. Everything that matters to the W3C DDR implementation is in Apache JIRA now, too, so any GitHub ticket or old site from 2012 are pretty much irrelevant. Bertrand/all, According to http://httpd.apache.org/dev/guidelines.html Release Plans (also what Reza sketched, that isn't more than an "intent" since there has been no vote on it so far;-) require Lazy majority (at least 3 x +1 and more +1 than -1) decides each issue in the release plan It's a bit hard to say for a very small PMC like this one, so what are your intentions in this case? The W3C DDR Simple client has and always had some advantages the "new" client may never get or at most in a 2.x release some time in 2016 or beyond. - Recognition of close enough devices based on the "confidence level", so while several of the tickets and UAs completely unrecognized by Classifier or at most saying "Generic Samsung Device" (with a 320x250 screen or so;-O) DeviceMap W3C Simple DDR will return the best compatible device from such family, e.g. a known "Samsung T530" can be identified with important aspects like screen size, etc. based on existing "T520" or "T520" providing a better result than Classifier for screen layout, etc. - True OS Version thanks to a more specialized Builder system, where a factory default OS is outdated, it'll be substituted with the actual OS of this device. - Works on Java 8 without bugs or glitches as of now! Some of these won't be "rewritten" by Reza till Java 9 or even 10 comes out, so why defraud the community of a client that offers all that now and did so ever since early 2013 in fact. A negative vote on DeviceMap Simple DDR 1.0.0 would mean to gain the community to access these and not lose them (forever or a very long time) it had to be removed from DeviceMap and launched as OpenDDR Java Client 1.0.0.29 or rather 1.1.0 (or even 2.0 who cares;-) with dependency to Apache DeviceMap Data. Unless of course a majority here preferred all of device-data to be TAKEN DOWN immediately and moved to OpenDDR-data while the DeviceMap users will have to wait for a working 2,0 rewrite of data, too?;-O DeviceMap would immediately lose the quality stamp "W3C Compatible" because just having some "legacy crap" XML that was inspired by W3C DDR without implementing the W3C Simple DDR API does not mean any of that will ever be W3C compliant. It simply isn't, leaving that quality stamp to OpenDDR .next. WDYT? Werner On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Reza Naghibi <[email protected] > wrote: > >> Everything that's not under "contrib" should have at least one official > release. > > Just to be clear, im going to be voting -1 on any legacy client release. > The legacy client can be downloaded and supported here: > > > https://github.com/OpenDDRdotORG/OpenDDR-Java > > > The above project can be the branch you are talking about. I dont see any > value or upside in re-releasing another legacy client branch under > DeviceMap. Have any of the issues [0] been resolved? What about the pull > requests [1]? Lots of reasons to move on from this client. Then we have the > fact that 2.0 will render it obsolete. > > [0] https://github.com/OpenDDRdotORG/OpenDDR-Java/issues > [1] https://github.com/OpenDDRdotORG/OpenDDR-Java/pulls > > > From: Werner Keil <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 12:25 PM > Subject: Re: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-112 > > Everything that's not under "contrib" should have at least one official > release. That's why I suggested to move the "test-data" folder into > /contrib (unless we agree it shall better be deleted from /trunk?) > > > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK thanks. > DDR Simple 1.0.0 is ready for release pretty much as of now. A few minor > improvements include using only Log4J 2 instead of SLF4J ("Eat your own > Dogfood" at Apache if you want, all examples are already migrated;-) The > only dependency is Data 1.0.1 or above, aside from the embedded W3C JAR. > A combined Examples project 1.0.0 shall follow. Demonstrating all Java > libraries. > Ideally we should have Jenkins CI sessions for 1.x and later 2.x branches > of all relevant artifacts, at least "Java" and "Examples". The Java 8 > glitch showed, we must have more than just Java 6 even if this is the > minimal JVM version we support until further notice;-) > Werner > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Reza Naghibi > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, just making sure. > > So here is my rough roadmap: > > -Jan 2015 - release data 1.0.2-Q2 2015, release data 1.0.3-Q3 to Q4, > release data and client 2.0 > From: Werner Keil <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 12:05 PM > Subject: Re: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-112 > > That's why it is slated for a 1.0 release (regardless of maturity but it > goes along with 1.x of the data files) and it does not need to be > compatible with any 2.0 data changes in future.Whether or not we maintain 2 > branches of data, guess time shall tell. Patches or fixes that can be > applied maybe, but like with other vendors (DeviceAtlas, 52DegreesMobi or > ScienteMobile/WURFL) they may not maintain 2 parallel repositories forever. > Werner > > > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Reza Naghibi > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I understand. > > What is the roadmap for the legacy client? > > Just so you are aware, 2.0 data release will remove the notion of a > builder from the data. How will the legacy client evolve to support this? > Take a look at this: > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/devicemap/trunk/devicemap/java/simpleddr/src/main/java/org/apache/devicemap/simpleddr/builder/?pathrev=1648789 > > > Go into the os, browser, and device. There is no way 2.0 data can maintain > support for this kind of builder architecture. Are you aware of this? > > From: Werner Keil <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2015 11:48 AM > Subject: Re: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-112 > > Well, it's just a fact, the W3C Simple implementation shall be released as > 1.0 according to a discussion we had a long time ago. > It's been around and stable almost ever since OpenDDR donated it and that > has not changed.The only reason it was not released was an incompatible > change (bug) you slipped into a Data release 1.x where packages of builders > were named improperly.This was fixed with 1.0,1, thus nothing prevents a > release of the DDR artifact. > There is no rift, we have a .NET client (which is barely maintained, but > that's another issue) and a new direction which allows more flexibility in > the "Cloud", e.g. retrrieving device data from various sources. That's > something W3C did not consider important, so the location of the data > source has to be fixed, that's the only real drawback of the W3C DDR > implementation. It could only be fixed in the W3C code we don't own;-) > I trust the PMC is wise enough to release the W3C DDR implementation, > because not only examples depend on it. And it provides functionality and > recognition power the "New Cloud" client will not get until V 2.0 as you > also said. It does not matter if that happens in JIRA or the mailing list, > JIRA is also transparent and allows us to see what's been done;) > Cheers,Werner > > > On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Reza Naghibi > <[email protected]> wrote: > > So I don't want to have discussions in JIRA, so Werner, can you please > elaborate on your last point in this thread: > > "Indicates, while not in direct competition, the "older" W3C one is a bit > more mature and stable." > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-112 > > > The reason im asking you to elaborate is because as a PMC member, I would > like to better understand your thoughts on this project, its mission > statement, and where we are going with our data and API development. > > Im concerned because you seem to be building a rift in this project in > regard to old API vs new API. This is not going to be good for the health > of the project so this is an attempt to better understand your views and > feeling towards the project and the direction we are going in. This is > important because you are someone who actively promotes and markets this > project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
