Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 99429 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 20:38:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Jul 2002 20:38:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 2376 invoked by uid 97); 11 Jul 2002 20:39:10 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2336 invoked by uid 97); 11 Jul 2002 20:39:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2310 invoked by uid 98); 11 Jul 2002 20:39:08 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4198 created Apr 24 2002) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 13:38:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Craig R. McClanahan" To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [validator] any 1.0 release plan? In-Reply-To: <20020711191150.15349.qmail@web40020.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020711133808.V32015-100000@icarus.apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: localhost 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, David Winterfeldt wrote: > Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:11:50 -0700 (PDT) > From: David Winterfeldt > Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [validator] any 1.0 release plan? > > I think Ted and Craig were willing to be behind > (listed as committers) the Validator component, but > I'm not sure. They are both pretty busy too. I'll > try to start working on everything again. I didn't > want to make any major changes before 1.0 since the > code has been working as is for quite awhile. > Count me in. > Off the top of my head for a release: > 1. Make the ability to define a set of rules, like and > address, and reference the set of rules in multiple > locations. > 2. Documentation > 3. More Unit Tests/Examples > 4. DTD (Craig has started one) It's currently checked in to Struts, but as David points out it really belongs in commons-validator instead. > 5. Any outstanding bugs > > And any help would be appreciated if any other > committers are interested. > > David > Craig > --- robert burrell donkin > wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 10, 2002, at 08:36 PM, Craig R. > > McClanahan wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Joe Germuska wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Are there any written requirements for a 1.0 > > release of Validator? > > >> There's only one open bug, unless it turns out > > that any of the Struts > > >> bugs classed under the Validator component belong > > more fairly with > > >> commons-validator than in the Struts adapter > > layer. > > >> > > > > > > I think David's on vacation at the moment; I will > > try to do some fill-in > > > on the from the Struts perspective, including > > possibly reclassifying any > > > bugs that are actually in the generic part. > > > > hi craig > > > > validator is still listed as having only one > > committer (David). this is at > > variance with the commons charter. more importantly, > > providing effective > > support is a lot of work for a single person. > > > > i was wondering whether we could find another couple > > of (existing) > > committers - perhaps from struts - who'd be willing > > to lend a hand. > > > > - robert > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free > http://sbc.yahoo.com > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > For additional commands, e-mail: > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: