On 6/29/07, Claude Brisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tested it in a real webapp and it seems ok... The new api is really much cleaner than the 1.x, that's a pleasure to use it!
good to hear!
There are some small developments I'd like to commit in but they are not ready and will wait for the 2.1 release.
we're only in alpha stage right now. unless they're really drastic, i think they should go in now. To me, "alpha" means "the big refactorings and core infrastructure is done; here's something to *start* working with. expect some changes." I'm likely to make more than a few small developments too.
so, +1 One remark: when fully rebuilding I saw that there remains some internal references to deprecated classes, like to the old ToolInfo class in o.a.v.tools.view package, that could easily be changed.
it's something we need to consider. at this point, i've decided to leave the old core infrastructure in place and deprecated. i know there's not likely to be many people who directly interacted with it (and thus we probably can yank it), but it's not really hurting anything and might still be useful in some way i haven't foreseen. also, i have occasionally thought that it might be nice to break the many deprecated class out into a separate "backwards compatible" build, but then we're basically talking about doubling the number of jars we distribute. since we already put out three, that seemed like overkill. anyway, all that is to say, we should have a discussion at some point about whether and/or how long we want to leave the various deprecated pieces (support for old toolbox format, support for Tools with init() methods, and the old tool management infrastructure) in place.
Claude Le vendredi 29 juin 2007 à 09:36 -0700, Will Glass-Husain a écrit : > Ok, I change my vote to a +1. Don't want to hold up progress here. After > all, it's an alpha. Anyone who uses this and complains about missing docs > will get support on the list. > > > does this really matter for an *alpha*, especially when none of the > > docs have been updated and so many of them are wrong, and the tools > > are mostly documented via javascript? > > Best, WILL > > > On 6/29/07, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 6/28/07, Will Glass-Husain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -1. (sorry!) > > > > > > There are no docs. All the generated doc files in the binary distro > > have > > > size of 0KB. In the source distro, typing "ant docs" also produces bad > > > docs. > > > > does this really matter for an *alpha*, especially when none of the > > docs have been updated and so many of them are wrong, and the tools > > are mostly documented via javascript? > > > > > Again, let me know if I'm missing something obvious. > > > > > > On the positive side, "ant test" worked fine under both JDK 1.5 and JDK > > 1.6 > > > > > > I'll note some trivial nits, probably want to fix before final 2.0release > > > -- notice file has 2006 copyright, not 2007 > > > > will fix. > > > > > -- ant clean doesn't remove empty target directory > > > > that's mvn/ant crossover. will fix, but doesn't matter. > > > > > -- the VLS_readme file is written in the first person tense, but who is > > that > > > person? (no one signed the message) > > > > been that way for all final releases. i wrote it before i was even a > > committer, i believe. > > > > > -- the STATUS file appears to be out of date. (not sure-- worth a > > check). > > > > it's an alpha. all the docs are out of date. :) > > > > > best, > > > WILL > > > > > > On 6/28/07, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ok, here goes again. The problem with the source build has been fixed > > > > and my refactorings from this morning are now included. Sorry that we > > > > have to do this again, but here goes: > > > > > > > > The new test build for this release is once again available at: > > > > http://people.apache.org/~nbubna/velocity/tools/2.0-alpha1/ > > > > > > > > Check out the release artifacts, play with an example, and vote! :) > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Let's do it > > > > [ ] +0 Have fun; i don't care. > > > > [ ] -0 Not sure about this, but i won't stop you. > > > > [ ] -1 No, because __________________ > > > > > > > > The voting period is typically 72 hours, but i won't wrap it up until > > > > the morning of Monday, July 2 at the earliest. If there aren't enough > > +1s > > > > and no -1s, then the vote will stay open until either i'm tired of > > > > waiting or all PMC members have voted. :) > > > > > > > > My vote is +1 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Forio Business Simulations > > > > > > Will Glass-Husain > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > www.forio.com > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
