I don't fully understand the issue, but... I think we need to
address the -1 by either changing the offending code or convincing Dain
that he should withdraw the -1. I don't think it's a very useful path to
allow one group of people to vote to ignore the -1 from another person in
order to get a release out.
From the limited amount of information in the last couple e-mails,
I don't think any of the issues David J described sounded particulary
-1-worthy to me, but I am a little concerned by Dain's suggestion that the
current code allows a GBean Name to contain characters that are not
allowed in an ObjectName. It seems that we're very tied to ObjectNames at
the moment, and opening this loophole doesn't sound very productive. I
can see "some day" replacing ObjectNames with non-ObjectName GBean Names
as the name of record, but until we get further down that path, I'm not
sure what this is getting us.
That said, I should probably read the original thread before I
comment any more. :)
Aaron
P.S. David, your message did sound a bit over the top -- if you really
feel that way, perhaps you should have gotten some clarification from Dain
privately first? Then again, perhaps you did.
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> > I've reviewed the original discussion on this topic. I'm rather
> > appalled that dain appears to regard this discussion as resulting
> > in a technical -1 forcing removal of the current gbean name code.
> > I would regard this attitude as an attempt to divide the geronimo
> > community in an extremely unproductive direction, so I certainly
> > hope I have misunderstood his position.
>
> That was an incredibly negative thing to write, and I take offense.
>
> To clarify, it is my understanding that the Apache Software
> Foundation will not allow us release software that has a standing
> technical veto. There are several standing technical vetos on this
> subject, and several of the +1s on this subject are +1 to put a
> feature back into the software. I understand that people don't like
> to use the -1 but a +1 to revert a change is a effectively a -1.
>
> On the exact technical subject, I am against the toString behavior,
> allowing characters that are not allowed by object names, and against
> I am against the removal of support domain queries. IIRC you were
> also against the expansion of allowed characters.
>
> Anyway, unless someone objects I'll remove the code from the M4 tree
> now. The code is very isolated and should not have an impact.
>
> -dain
>
>
