commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Tirsén <>
Subject Re: _Commons-Attributes_(sandbox)_and_Jon_Tirsén.
Date Sun, 08 Jun 2003 19:58:42 GMT
Why implement something that's JSR175-compliant? That's gonna be part of
JDK1.5 anyway. Besides it's probably not doable since it requires a

Attrib4J and JSR175 has tons of extra stuff where I've always seen
commons-attributes (and Nanning) as extremely simplistic, ie named
attributes whose values are strings.

In my experience this has been very useful and for a very small
price-tag (both when it comes to learning the API, and of course
implementing it).

I don't see the point of putting commons-attributes in this direction
(but it's not my decision to make). Why not just do it in attrib4j which
has that intent? If it necessarily has to be a Jakarta-project why not
start another one?

On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 14:48, Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> I have e-mailed briefly with Mark Pollack of  
> It seems some work needs to be done to support JSR175 for both 
> commons-attributes and attrib4j.  The main difference Jon and Mark have 
> so far is the Attribute interface, where Mark would rather not have 
> String properties for Name and Value.
> One interesting thing about attrib4j is that it stores its attributes in 
> the class file instead of a separate properties file.  I think that 
> since the attribute storage mechanism is already abstracted in the 
> current commons-attributes through the DefaultAttributeFinder and 
> DefaultAttributeCompiler, it would make sense to agree on a common 
> interface and create multiple implementations.
> I am currently a committer on  Can I help?
> --
> Ryan Hoegg
> ISIS Networks
> Paul Hammant wrote:
> >Well I volunteer to help this get promoted out of sandbox.  I've done work on it
before (pairing
> >with James Strachan - which he never committed - grumble grumble ;)
> >
> >Jon, that sound good to you ?
> >
> >- Paul
> >
> > --- robert burrell donkin <> wrote: >
i'm against nominating
> >committers for work on sandbox components.
> >  
> >
> >>(apache committers should just be able to request karma and then check 
> >>with the current committers that it's ok to join the fun.)
> >>
> >>if jon is an existing apache committer then he needs to post a request to 
> >>the pmc cc'ing commons-dev giving some brief indications of his plans. we 
> >>should then be able to sort out karma with infrastructure.
> >>
> >>IMHO if jon is not then the best solution would be for an existing apache 
> >>committer to volunteer (yourself, maybe) to lead an effort to push 
> >>attributes forward to a stage where it's ready for promotion to the common 
> >>proper.
> >>
> >>BTW are there any copyright issues associated with the Nanning code?
> >>
> >>- robert
> >>
> >>On Sunday, June 8, 2003, at 11:33 AM, Paul Hammant wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>Jon has been working on attributes inside Nanning's CVS. The code we have

> >>>(which is really) good
> >>>is an earlier fork of that.  Is there any way we can get Jon commit provs

> >>>here?  The version in
> >>>Nanning is much more advanced than the version he donated to us earlier.
> >>>
> >>>If we can get some consensus, I think a vote may be a good idea.  Surely

> >>>he must qualify on the
> >>>multi-month patch donator principle?
> >>>
> >>>- Paul
> >>>
> >>>__________________________________________________
> >>>Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message