Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 56186 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2003 16:44:58 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 25 Jun 2003 16:44:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 20842 invoked by uid 97); 25 Jun 2003 16:47:22 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 20835 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2003 16:47:21 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 25 Jun 2003 16:47:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 54995 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2003 16:44:46 -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 28304 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2003 13:38:09 -0000 Message-ID: <3EF9A5E4.7040802@tibco.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 09:38:44 -0400 From: "Eric Johnson" Organization: TIBCO Extensibility User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Commons HttpClient Project CC: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [SURVEY] Commons-URI or not? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N It would seem that most if not all of the responses from the HttpClient crew responded only to the HttpClient list, and not to commons dev. So I'm not sure that all that might need/want to see the entirely negative feedback have seen it. I don't subscribe to commons-dev, so if this doesn't get through, would someone mind reposting it there? I too am against a separate URI commons package, at least for the moment. In any event, who else depends on a URI class? At the moment, there are three obvious sources for URI type functionality that I am aware of: HttpClient, Slide, and JRE 1.4. Slide, rather than using what is in HttpClient, is using its own, even though Slide includes HttpClient in its build dependencies. Without anyone even sharing the code in the first place, it doesn't seem like a good candidate for a separate project. One of the negatives that others have mentioned on the HttpClient list is the growing dependency problem within the Apache projects, particularly with the myriad of dependencies on commons projects, and among the commons projects themselves. Perhaps what we need to do is start clumping some of the commons projects together, as well as having the stand-alone pieces we have now. A first cut at combining some of the commons projects into one giant JAR might include: * beanutil * cli * codec * collections * dbcp * fileupload * httpclient * lang * logging * net * pool My criteria for the above list were three-fold - base requirement of JRE 1.2 or later, that the project should have an official blessed release, and that it shouldn't depend on any outside libraries - like an XML parser - at runtime. And I'll admit that I'm fudging on HttpClient (and file upload) a little, in that I don't think anyone following HttpClient would want to include the 1.0 release, but I'm guessing that by the time such a project is agreed upon and pulled together, HttpClient 2.0 will be final.... At least here's to hoping. Anyway, to the extent that a separate URI package would make sense, if we had a model such as the above, where most people used the one giant JAR instead of the individual ones, the creation of a separate commons URI project would be largely one of focus and interest, rather than an additional dependency quagmire. -Eric Johnson Sung-Gu wrote: >Hi all, > >I suggest that jakarta-commons provides flexible URI issue implementations >as a package. > >Various applications using URI concept comes in the internet world. and >they need common mechanisms and algorithms for URI. > >For example, all internet programs will need fundamental functionalites of >URI like extensible parsing and manipulation container for URL reference, >URN and URC, escape codec mechanism, charset tranformation functionality, >URI transformation from real world identities or URN, or other >transformations related to DNS or telephony... If it would be prepared >commonly in Jakarta, we can save development powers. So I suggest new >commons-uri package. > >FYI, currently the commons-httpclient is using it. > >Any comments? >Or any +1, -1? > >Sung-Gu > >P.S.: If the requirement is very weak, I want to put the new package into >commons-sandbox even for a long while in my opinion... > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-httpclient-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: commons-httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org