Not sure, how much you worked with WURFL before it was closed away, but in fact it and the once open community around it (which inspired the initial OpenDDR while we adopted the W3C standard WURFL never did) is to blame most. Bertrand saved the last open evidence here: https://github.com/bdelacretaz/wurfl
You'll see, it is one single XML file with every aspect mashed together. The W3C files were always properly separated but defining a new open data it was still heavily influenced by what was contributed to WURFL once (not a direct copy but inspired and fuelled by the same contributors to start with) That's why, we probably should have restructured that earlier, but neither OpenDDR team nor this has always been so big;-) Werner On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, kudos to Apache logging for navigating that. Not sure if that is > enough to convince me that we can replicate that kind of success. > > Listen, im not stopping anyone from moving forward here. Im just saying > this is not for me. > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But you see this everywhere in Apache. Commons-Config, Tomcat or Logging: > > http://logging.apache.org/ > > > > You'll see even "clones" for .NET called Log4Net, which I believe is far > > more modeled after Log4J 1.x, And at least regarding critical bug fixes, > > etc. Log4J is maintained and will be for decades to come. There are so > many > > projects that depend on it, that just becaue Log4J 2 exists doesn't make > it > > away or force every single Java app around the world to change it because > > Log4J 1 has an End of Life (even the JDK doesn't, you just have to pay > much > > more to Oracle if you needed their help ;-D) > > > > Werner > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I don't see why that prevents others from maintaining them > > > > > > That kind of goes against years of project best practices. Generally > when > > > you have a software project, new features and improvements are released > > as > > > major versions. The assumption is that older versions are deprecated. > > This > > > can repeat forever or until the project hits maturity/stability. I feel > > > that this is the norm for most successful projects. > > > > > > I think the scenario you are describing is called a branch. That is > when > > a > > > project is supporting 2 heads, and im talking about software version > > heads > > > here. The problem is that the branches will complete for features and > > users > > > and developer attention. Thats ok, projects branch all the time. But if > > you > > > are saying that 2 branches should live in the same project house and > > PMC, I > > > dont know if I agree with that. That leads to confusion, disagreement, > > > competition, all kinds of bad things. I personally dont have the will > to > > > move forward with such a project, it takes a mental and emotional toll > > out > > > of you. This project has drained the joy of software out of me because > I > > am > > > spending all my time trying to find some kind of rational organization > > > here. Maybe im just stuck in my old ways which is why I am prepared to > > move > > > my branch elsewhere. When there is less room for disagreement and > > > competition, there is more room for fun. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > > > [email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > ...So I for one have no interest into supporting these clients.... > > > > > > > > Which is totally fine, but I don't see why that prevents others from > > > > maintaining them. > > > > > > > > -Bertrand > > > > > > > > > >
