On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:29 PM, 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.
My apologies. Upon further thought, I realize I have often been using
-1 (and +1 to "put it back") to mean "I think there's a better way to
do this, lets talk about it some more" rather than "I'm vetoing this".
I assumed with no justification everyone else was doing the same. But,
you are completely correct, we (including me) did -1 some features, and
according to apache rules we have to resolve the situation before we
ship. I am going to have to be more careful in the future about my
unwarranted assumptions.
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.
I think removing it from M4 is certainly the most expedient approach
for M4. I'd like to discuss it some more and actually review the code
before we do anything in M5.
thanks
david jencks
-dain
