Do you guys think this is the way to go or no?
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 11, 2008, at 9:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Les,
If you make a version called, say, "moved-to-asf" I will be happy to
copy anything in there over to the new Jira.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 10, 2008, at 8:39 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
Ah, excellent question.
The basic answer is that I was waiting for us to get the 0.9 release
out for our existing community before we switch to the Apache Jira
100%. The _only_ reason being is that Jira will auto-generate
release
notes for us, and if all the issues for a given release are entirely
under one Jira installation, then we can be sure it generates the
complete list. If we had half our resolved issues in one location
and
the other half in Jira, it would be a pain to deal with when release
time comes, which is why I wanted to make a clean break at a
well-delimited point in time.
Since there are only 2 outstanding issues for 0.9 RC1, I can just
move
over the remaining issues (by hand) for 0.9 RC2 and above. This
would
make the transition a tad earlier than I originally expected, but
that
is as good a time as any probably.
There's no easy way than by hand. May as well start w/ the new
ones.
Regards,
Alan
On Jul 10, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Jeremy Haile wrote:
We haven't transitioned to the Apache JIRA yet. Our issues haven't
been migrated over yet.
On Jul 10, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Why hasn't this been filed on the Apache Jira?
Regards,
Alan
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
http://issues.jsecurity.org/browse/JSEC-117
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi all,
I was contacted via private email yesterday about a company that
wishes to use JSecurity in their product, but they were concerned
about our use of Commons Logging, citing the now familiar
classloader issues. It was interesting timing because of my
proposal to use SLF4J last week.
This gent's recommendation was that we have our own (very
minimal) Log interface that we would use in our classes instead
of Commons Logging. He brought up a number of cases of
difficulty implementing frameworks in companies that have their
own proprietary logging framework (events, monitoring, etc), and
said it would be much easier and more flexible if they could
implement their own version of a Log interface to do what they
need, using their companies' APIs.
I think it is a good idea, and would be super easy - it is
basically one interface (Log) and maybe a 2nd (LogFactory,
whatever). Then our default implementation could use the JVM
logger or SLF4J to allow any number of pluggable logging
implementations. This provides greater flexibility for any
environment. We already do the same thing for caching (Cache,
CacheManager) which in turn delegates to Caching product
implementation specific classes (ehcache, JCache, etc). Same
concept.
The thing that sounds clean to me about this, is that if it was
implemented, we would have NO required dependencies on any 3rd
party library. That just feels sexy. But we can still have
default implementations that use our favorite infrastructure.
Any thoughts or objections?
