Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
JAMES uses LogKit (and so avalon framework) for logging. though LogKit
is good, it's tied to avalon and no longer widely used. most
developers would be much more familiar with log4j and JCL. it is
possible to use either of these libraries in an IoC fashion which
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:49 AM, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
snip
i'm happy with avalon but i accept that using avalon (as an IoC) is
a major negative factor in attracting new developers
I think that's a false truth that has become a meme. Drop the
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I think it is a different story. That branch involved much less code than
current v2.3-trunk differences but included major changes to mailet api.
Yes, much
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Stefano Bagnara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
trunk was forked from 2.3.0 several years ago now
Yes, I am keenly aware of the last time I had time to work on a release and
the communal disinterest
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I think it is a different story. That branch involved much less code than
current v2.3-trunk differences but included major changes to mailet api.
Yes, much less code. More code == more bugs. And you certainly aren't
going to claim that there aren't major changes in
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
releasing a 3.0 would involve a series of milestone releases to
build confidence in the new codebase rather than a manual process
of re-evaluating every change.
Re-evaluating implies that they were evaluated in the first place.
i hope to have a function complete
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
trunk was forked from 2.3.0 several years ago now and contains
significant differences not only in organisation but also design. i
doubt whether anyone has the time required to perform a comprehensive
manual comparison now whether the mailets are in trunk or
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
It sounds OK, so +1 in general, but with all of the refactoring, we've
making it increasingly difficult to compare versions of JAMES. This
would
not be so bad if we had ever made a stable baseline prior to the
refactorings, but instead
