Rahul Akolkar wrote:
This is a vote to consolidate the development lists at Jakarta into
one development and one notifications list. For background including
timing, anticipated benefits and some discussion, see proposal [1]
thread.
+1
Subject to encouraging a Commons style prefixing system
Roland Weber wrote:
1. Keep the httpclient site with the rest of commons
and move it to the new TLP domain. We'll have to update
the httpclient build with the new location and redeploy.
(Anything I've forgotten?)
2. Move the httpclient site to httpcomponents. Since
httpcomponents is unlikely to
- Original Message
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/22/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In summary:
a) I believe the status quo is not viable
b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups
My suggestion was to merge the Jakarta
This seems a little overplanned in my mind ;) Allow a little more evolution.
- Commons goes TLP.
- Rules for Commons TLP become clear (one mailing list, one PMC, anyone commits
in any component, anyone votes/reviews any release, comfortable social group)
- Then invite communities from Jakarta
- Original Message
From: sebb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do all the Commons sub-projects have sufficient numbers ot committers
to justify them remaining in Commons? For example CLI has not even had
a formal release yet and has been far less active than JMeter, but is
still protected by being
- Original Message
From: Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Using CLI as an example, I'm not sure that there is a shared sense of
responsibility for it.
CLI 1.x has had an issue open against it since 2006-03 with only
recent activity on it, and Henri's comment in that issue from 2007-03
- Original Message
From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5/22/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Yes, of course, there are passionate believers in the development
of particular libraries. Are there enough to make a viable community
for *any* of the libraries on
Travelling ATM, limited internet
My preference is for a java-only commons.apache.org. I don't see that as scary
or unreasonable. My +1 is based on that assumption.
Also, from a practical matter, our projects already use org.apache.commons, so
this is already recognised in the ASF.
Stephen
[X] +1 I support the proposal
[ ] +0 I don't care
[ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because...
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you Andy for the detailed and constructive response. I didn't and
won't participate in the previous thread because there were too many
negatives there.
I like the proposals below, so long as the X months is not too large. I
believe a 3-4 months target is appropriate for a POI TLP.
Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ortwin_Gl=FCck?= writes:
JDK version: what a mess. IMHO this is THE information that is missing
on almost ANY project page out there.
I think everyone's responses have brought this topic to closure.
Library dependencies
Henri Yandell wrote:
What do people think to the following:
1) Every existing committer not on the pmc receives an email asking if
they would like to join the pmc. Once that email is sent they are marked
in a file as having had the email sent and we can wash our hands until a
reply comes in.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 5/13/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: scolebourne
Fix IE menu problem
snip/
Thanks for looking into this!
Yeh, it was an IE bug where one background colour messed up another. I
used the old trick of removing everything and then gradually
[ ] +1 I am favorable to the move and would like to contribute to the new TLP
[X] +1 I am favorable to the move but would not be participating in the new TLP
[ ] +0 it does not matter to me
[ ] -1 I am against it because
Stephen
--- Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think our scope is:
***
Components that are,
a) written in and/or for the Java environment
b) too small in the long-term to be their own
independent communities
[X] +1
[ ] -1
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henri Yandell wrote:
A joke turns into something serious ...but I am all with you guys.
As I said: the more I think about it - the more I like the idea!
You've got my +1 :)
But is that what you mean? (+1 is active not passive)
This all sounds like a nice idea, and could potentially solve
DbUtils and DBCP to db.apache.org sounds like a win to me; DBCP would
point back to Jakarta for a dependency on [pool], but that helps to
foster intra-project involvement.
Betwixt, Digester and JXPath strike me as a bit more to swallow and XML
might not want to taking such bites. You want to
For the record, I wrote this to try to sum up where discussions have got
to and to provide some vision as to where the end result might be.
Checking mailing lists tonight indicates that POI has quite a healthy
set of messages as is. I didn't see much development discussion (an
indicator of
Reposted (edited) from original commons proposal.
Currently this proposal has general, though not unanimous, support.
A vote thread may follow this thread if the mood remains positive.
I hereby propose the creation of a new Jakarta entity named 'Jakarta
Language Components'.
This will be
Roland Weber wrote:
Hello,
other 1-word suggestions would be great.
since they're language components, you can call them Syllables :-)
I understand the desire for 'fancy' names, but it misses the point
unfortunately. This is merely a grouping a several *Jakarta* components.
A fancy name
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I will vote -1 based soley on item 1 of the list for the reasons I've
already explained. I think that having ANOTHER jak-commons is a
fundementally bad idea. If these are truly enahancements to JavaSE,
they are one community, and share a mailinglist...then make them
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Could you elaborate a bit on what the physical / visual-to-users
differences to the current commons, well, Jakarta sub-project will be
? Will this be a new Jakarta sub-project (and the other commons
components will remain in the current commons one) ?
I've been trying to
Henri Yandell wrote:
Given that we are one project and that we should be acting as one
community
I both agree and disagree with the premise.
Jakarta is one community from an ASF point of view (not that important).
Jakarta is many communities in reality (really important).
Reality and
Henri Yandell wrote:
I'm not tied to any of the things I'm suggesting - except the strong
belief that Jakarta as a community of communities cannot work. So I'm
definitely in favour of more shared site and less individual site - I'm
in favour of a flat Jakarta, both in terms of SVN acces and
Tim OBrien wrote:
--- Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For example:
- HttpComponents
- WebComponents
- LibraryComponents (narrowAPI-deep)
- BaseComponents (broadAPI-shallow)
Explain that narrowAPI-deep, braodAPI-shallow
business.
BroadAPI-Shallow
The principal API of the component
Phil Steitz wrote:
Hopefully we can keep it at a point where the groups are really just
there to refine the flow of mail, not to separate it. HttpComponents
is an example of this (though not a good one as most of its components
came from HttpClient). WebComponents (formerly hoped to be known
Martin Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, David Smiley wrote:
Hello all. I love using GMANE ( http://www.gmane.org ) to access
mailing lists because:
1. one stop mailing-list shopping -- a consistent experience
2. NNTP access
3. easiest path to posting a question to a list that you're not a
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
is boils down to the question: does this subproject need it's own
sandbox or will neophyte components start in the jakarta commons
sandbox?
+1 for sandbox (non-binding)
Its slightly hard to imagine anything otherwise, but maybe I'm just
used to seeing how commons and
robert burrell donkin wrote:
this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop
point 12.
12. The subproject will also provide a single JAR of all stable package
releases. It may also provide a second JAR with a subset of only JDK 1.1
compatible releases. A gump of nightly
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
9 or somewhere else should speak to J2EE or other external config
requirments, which should be fine, even encouraged in some cases
is 9 needed? are any configuration guidelines needed?
if they are then i
There doesn't seem to be a thread for this
The current suggestions are:
Commons Web
Jakarta Web Parts for Java (JWP4J)
Web App Commons
Web App Components
Web App Modules
Web Bricks
Web Commons
Web Components
Web Libs
Web Parts
Web Tools
Weblets
Of these, WebParts has issues
robert burrell donkin wrote:
there have been a number of long running threads in the commons
discussing the possibility of commons components for use in web
applications. the consensus emerged that it would be best if a new
subproject with a structure similar to the commons was created for
From: Henri Gomez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well I'd like to know the pros and cons of Tomcat being TLP.
As I said in tomcat-dev, it was proposed when ant became TLP and at
this time the consensus was to stay under jakarta umbrella.
What motivate the move to TLP now.
Currently, Tomcat developers are
While not directly involved with Tomcat, some code I have written via
commons probably is included in Tomcat distros.
My comment is simply that I found the pdf description rather distasteful and
definitely worthy of gentle correction.
We all have lines that we don't want to see crossed, and
The problem occurs when a new method is added to a common class
StringBuffer.append(Object) was in early JDKs
StringBuffer.append (StringBuffer) was added later
If you compile under the later JDKs it uses the second method. Run that
bytecode on an earlier JDK and it fails. Thats why I always
[X] +1
[ ] -1
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am with this view. Its time to remove other TLP projects from Jakarta,
whether or not they once had some link to Jakarta.
Stephen
- Original Message -
Do most visitors care about whether a project is graduated or related?
If a new user comes from an up-to-date link (or book/article),
#8 (langauages) is a pity. Are we planning on trying to fomalize the
relationship? To cut them off seems a bit of a disservice after a lot of
effort, although equally inaccurate info can be damaging.
Also, I'd like to see a section on the left for dormant projects. That
doesn't have to be done
What I was thinking of for projects is something like:
++
|=Projects===|
+--Subprojects---+
| * Alexandia|
| * etc... |
+--Graduated-+
| * Ant |
| * etc... |
++
I have two concerns with this: It takes up more space and nothing else
http://wiki.apache.org/general/JavaFutures
Stephen
--- Dakota Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What wiki, where? Thanx,
Jack
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:08:36 -0400, Noel J. Bergman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, the ideas can be discussed on the mailing
list, but we should collect
get some
direct feedback on the
Wiki page from Sun.
--- Noel
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 19:54
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Deciding on Java futures?
How are we deciding on the Java
How are we deciding on the Java Futures? Are we voting? Just talking?
There are wide ranging views here, from add no more (JDK1.5 was bad enough)
to add everything but the kitchen sink.
The wiki has some simpler ideas which haven't been shouted down yet, like
jar in jar and access to the Class
Fowarding to jakarta general list from commons.
Are there any apache committers willing to help out on porting
commons-collections to JDK1.5?? I'm overloaded ATM, so can't really help.
Whats needed is an existing committer willing to make commits and work on
this.
Stephen
- Original Message
.
oh well: win some, lose some. that's just the way it is...
- robert
On 20 Jun 2004, at 22:45, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
PROPOSAL
i'd like to shift all jakarta commons component downloads onto
separate
pages which are linked from
PROPOSAL
i'd like to shift all jakarta commons component downloads onto separate
pages which are linked from the main ones. i think that this will
prolong the useful life of the original page without really effecting
it's utility.
+1
[X] +1 I support this proposal (PMC)
[ ] -1 I don't support this proposal
[ ] 0 I abstain from voting for or against this
proposal
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
-PROPOSITION (1)-
* Require all Jakarta products (or subprojects) to file regular reports
with the PMC.
You mean 'make each subproject work like a TLP' don't you?
Since the PMC cannot delegate its responsibilities, the report would
have to be prepared by a PMC member, ideally one directly
There has been considerable emphasis on this list over recent weeks for the
sticking plaster approach. That is to make small minor changes to Jakarta in
the hope the board will stop hassling us. This could be because this is the
consensus view and I'm an odd one out. Or it could be that those in
I have added to the wiki
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCTopLevelProjectAppli
cation a section on board meeting dates (Jan 21st according to the
archives). (If anyone knows a better source, or more dates, please update
the wiki).
Any suggestions of someone who could comment
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What really saddens me is the idea of chasing them out the door.
To use an analogy, its like being the parents of a family, where the
children, aged from 4 to 40, are all living at home. It strikes me that it
isn't healthy for that 40 year old to be
. There is no legal requirement that any arbitrary idea that a
person has *must* be propagated directly to the dev list of each
sub-project. Let others join in this...
-Ted.
- Original message
From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think a lot of what you say presupposed some sort of onerous
additional work that comes from being a part of the Jakarta PMC. I
would argue that it's no different - if you are providing oversight
independently of Jakarta or part of Jakarta, it's
From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We need to get that view corrected, because there is *nothing* that
states that every member of the PMC is *directly* responsible for ever
part of every code, doc, mail list and CVS usage in Jakarta, the key
word is directly.
As a PMC member, I should
you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :) Talk about
over-regulation...
LOL :-) OK, so it is a bad analogy. I don't believe that either
Costin or
I live in the EU.
I don't either. I live in Connecticut, USA.
I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to
As an experiment, I tried asking some non-Jakarta people about some of the
issues we face:
http://www.javalobby.org/thread.jspa?forumID=61threadID=10427
Some comments that made me smile were:
Honestly, Jakarta doesn't mean much to me at all, other than some arbitrary
grouping under Apache. I
Then try this:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPMCPropsedChanges
It aims to be a starter course on why discssions about PMCs, TLPs, Jakarta
and the ASF appear, and possibly how they affect you. Be aware of the
disclaimer at the top, however trying to distill any controversial
Not really (my POV)
As people we naturally think in terms of the hierarchy
ASF to Jakarta to MySubProject.
But the middle layer is artificial. It could just as well be XML or DB or
WebApps or Java or C or 'Projects starting with S' or 'Projects where Joe
Bloggs works'. There simply is no one
As some of you may know, I look after my own date and time code in Java at
www.joda.org. I had been hoping to bring this code to Apache, as I believe
it to be a very good fit with developments within Jakarta/Jakarta-commons.
Today I decided not to pursue this option for the time being, until the
The list of TLP sugestions outlined below is a good starting point. I'll
suggest some applicability:
The question is whether some projects are willing to make the step to TLP.
These seem like possible candidates:
Tomcat, Lucene, Struts, Velocity
Some others don't strike me as moving out:
BCEL,
: [i18n] Internationalization subproject sponsor?
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Once you start getting into a list like this you must consider the IBM
ICU
project, which tackles these kind of issues. (note, I haven't used ICU).
ICU tackles a lot of important functionality, mainly related
Once you start getting into a list like this you must consider the IBM ICU
project, which tackles these kind of issues. (note, I haven't used ICU).
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: J.Pietschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Yesterday I received the Jakarta Monthly Newsletter. Interesting as always,
until I got to the section on PMC nominations. There, I suddenly found my
name listed as elected to the Jakarta PMC. This came as a complete surprise
and shock to me.
When I followed the relevant link, I discovered that a
63 matches
Mail list logo
