Re: [POLL] drop point 12 [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
On 6/25/05, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 builds will also be provided." > > > > > --8<--- > > [X] +1 Get rid! > > [ ] -1 Keep it (please give a reason...) > > -- > > One jar didn't work for commons, no reason to expect it will here. +1. Let's ditch it. -- Martin Cooper > Stephen > > - > 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]
Re: [POLL] drop point 12 [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
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 builds will also be provided." --8<--- [X] +1 Get rid! [ ] -1 Keep it (please give a reason...) -- One jar didn't work for commons, no reason to expect it will here. Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] drop point 12 [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
Frank W. Zammetti wrote: I'm not sure I understand #12... is it talking about providing a JAR of a release for archival purposes? I think that in the early (actually as recently as a year or so ago) days of Jakarta Commons, a "combo jar" was produced that included *all* of the commons components (or at least the most commonly used ones), so that you could just deploy one jar and get them all. As robert points out below, internal and external dependencies and conflicts made that impractical, so, despite this reference in the charter, we no longer produce such a thing. I would like to see this project adopt the packaging scheme my own Java Web Parts project has in that each actual Java package is JAR'd separately. That way a developer can easily pick and choose which parts they want to use. +1 Phil I mention that because depending on what #12 really is talking about, that could conflict with that idea. I'm not sure. Frank robert burrell donkin wrote: On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: Don't know what kind of goo 12 would result in or who would use such a thing ;-) this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop point 12. - robert --8<--- [ ] +1 Get rid! [ ] -1 Keep it (please give a reason...) -- - 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]
Re: [POLL] drop point 12 [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
On 6/23/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > > > > > Don't know what kind of goo 12 would result in or who would use such a > > thing ;-) > > this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop > point 12. > > - robert > > --8<--- > [ ] +1 Get rid! > [ ] -1 Keep it (please give a reason...) > -- +1 (non-binding) I think each "component" (i.e. bullet in the examples in the Preamble) should be at the liberty to decide how they get packaged/distributed. For example, servlets and filters (two components) may choose to have one library, but one component, Taglibs (again, if it joins), may have multiple jars (as it does today). I think removing 12 rightfully delays these decisions :-) On 6/23/05, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mention that because depending on what #12 really is talking about, > that could conflict with that idea. I'm not sure. I think the implication of 12 conflicts your view. -Rahul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] drop point 12 [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
I'm not sure I understand #12... is it talking about providing a JAR of a release for archival purposes? I would like to see this project adopt the packaging scheme my own Java Web Parts project has in that each actual Java package is JAR'd separately. That way a developer can easily pick and choose which parts they want to use. I mention that because depending on what #12 really is talking about, that could conflict with that idea. I'm not sure. Frank robert burrell donkin wrote: On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: Don't know what kind of goo 12 would result in or who would use such a thing ;-) this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop point 12. - robert --8<--- [ ] +1 Get rid! [ ] -1 Keep it (please give a reason...) -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [POLL] drop point 12 [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
I'm not sure I understand #12... is it talking about providing a JAR of a release for archival purposes? I would like to see this project adopt the packaging scheme my own Java Web Parts project has in that each actual Java package is JAR'd separately. That way a developer can easily pick and choose which parts they want to use. I mention that because depending on what #12 really is talking about, that could conflict with that idea. I'm not sure. Frank robert burrell donkin wrote: On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: Don't know what kind of goo 12 would result in or who would use such a thing ;-) this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop point 12. - robert --8<--- [ ] +1 Get rid! [ ] -1 Keep it (please give a reason...) -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[POLL] drop point 12 [WAS Re: [PROPOSAL] subproject that's a home for bricks reusable in java web applications]
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 14:40 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > Don't know what kind of goo 12 would result in or who would use such a > thing ;-) this has proved impractical in the jakarta commons. i propose we drop point 12. - robert --8<--- [ ] +1 Get rid! [ ] -1 Keep it (please give a reason...) -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
