[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-38?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12658485#action_12658485
]
Murray Altheim commented on JSPWIKI-38:
---------------------------------------
Janne,
I have previously commented on this project in ways I thought were productive,
and
your reaction has at times been very negative. I'm sorry you thought my message
was a rant, as it certainly wasn't intended as such. I wasn't trying to suggest
that
you or anyone else in the project has bad judgment, has made bad decisions, etc.
Far from it. I have a great deal of respect for the people involved, and the
quality of
the work is always very high. I have not assumed the worst, and I tried to make
that clear in my message: I stated that I was basing my understanding on what I
have read of the messages passing through jspwiki-dev, as I do read each one.
As for forking, the substantial amount of code that I've written that extends
the
functionality was not written as a fork, as it relies entirely on the existing
APIs and
existing base classes (e.g., WikiContext). I have not contributed that code
because
*I currently do not have that legal option*. I continue to explore the
possibility of
releasing it with management but that timeline and priority is not up to me. We
just had a contract change and the question is again in the air (though I have
at
least verbal assurances from my manager on releasing IP, for what that's worth).
I was reacting to what looks to be some very substantive changes in 3.0, both
with
the APIs (things that were classes are turning into APIs and vice-versa) as
well as
backend changes that will take me a lot of time to deal with since they also
break
the existing provider API (from what I can see). As you know I'm quite
interested in
using priha but even that will take a lot of time to deal with since I'll
likely be
integrating it with other systems.
Both this message and previous ones were simply pleas for simplicity: when
and where there is an option for a simpler design I am simply asking that the
simpler approach be taken. When there is an option to completely break previous
APIs that those decisions be taken with the knowledge that this will have a very
substantial impact on existing users, some a lot more than others. I happen to
be a somewhat special case because I have done a lot of extension work, but
all that work is based on APIs or base classes that look to change or disappear.
If that's not a cause for concern amongst this project team I'm not sure what
might be. I'm probably not the only person to have used JSPWiki as part of an
enterprise system. Anyone else that has may find migrating to 3.0 difficult.
But please don't consider this a rant. I am not angry. I am not trying to spread
fear, merely have a conversation. I hope to be able to fully test out the code
against the work I've done previously, but as a lot of people my time available
to do this is short. I'm hoping to have more in the new year. We've had a rather
surreal last six months.
And as to message length, I'm a very fast typist. :-)
Murray
> Rename packages to "org.apache.jspwiki"
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: JSPWIKI-38
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-38
> Project: JSPWiki
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Janne Jalkanen
> Assignee: Janne Jalkanen
> Fix For: 3.0
>
>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
