commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Cohen <>
Subject Re: [net] JSSE classes in FTPS WAS Re: [net] FTPS submission - legal issues
Date Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:20:29 GMT
Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
> I'm living in the timewarp of digest mode subscription, so please forgive
> me for having made obsoleted comments.
> In message <>, Rory Winston writes:
>>I think that's a great suggestion. It moves us forward without 
>>necessarily sacrificing backwards compatability.
> ...
>>Steve Cohen wrote:
>>>Thank you for this explanation.  It is good to actually look at the 
>>>code instead of making assumptions, which is what I have been doing.
> ...
>>>Therefore, I think the solution for this is for Jakarta Commons Net to 
>>>take Rory Winston's suggestion and start a new branch of Commons Net 
>>>for JDK 1.4 only (for this and other reasons) and maintain two 
>>>branches for awhile, the current HEAD branch for 1.3 compatibility and 
>>>the new branch for 1.4.  The new branch can use the 
>>>classes, the old one can use
> +1
> Since we're going to branch anyway and in light of Steve's discoveries about
> JSSE 1.0.3, this seems like the easiest way to handle the situation.
> daniel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
Daniel, before we vote, I think we need a formal motion to vote on, 
especially in light of your "obsoleted" comments in the other thread.

I think the proposal on the floor is to do two things

A) a commons-net 1.5 containing fixes for any outstanding bugs and 
incorporating Josejuan Montiel and Paul Ferraro's FTPS code.  This code 
would depend on classes.  It would be the last release 
supporting JDKs < 1.4

B) a commons-net 2.0 (possibly a different project) that would require 
jdk 1.4 compatibility, including modifying the FTPS code to use, the nio extensions, and using java 1.4's regex which 
would have the one small advantage of reducing dependency on other jars 
which periodically rears its head as an issue.

While I'm generally in favor of this, I still don't think its ready for 
a vote because of "possibly a different project", which is too vague.

One more thing, we would need Paul Ferraro to sign a "Software Grant" 
which was mentioned about a week ago by Cliff Schmidt.  I am trying to 
get details on this.

Steve Cohen

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

View raw message