Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of dfs@savarese.org designates
 204.91.10.133 as permitted sender)
Message-Id: <200601300408.k0U48MAN006349@gandalf.savarese.org>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [net] JDK 1.4+ Branch? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:30:15 GMT."
             <43DD41F7.8030404@eircom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:08:22 -0500
From: "Daniel F. Savarese" <dfs@savarese.org>


In message <43DD41F7.8030404@eircom.net>, Rory Winston writes:
>* You're correct that there is no inherent advantage, at least 
>functionality-wise, in removing the ORO dependency. I think the major 

I didn't mean to suggest that the dependency shouldn't be removed.
I was just being nitpicky and saying that it should be removed because
we're using JDK 1.4 rather than we should move to JDK 1.4 so we can
remove it.

>* The FTPClient/TelnetClient area: actually, I may have misremembered a 
>comment you made some time back, in which I think you may have expressed 
>a desire to break the dependeny here. I think at least what we should 
>look at is making any incremental changes to the threading code that may 
>be required.

I'd have to look back through the archives to see what we talked about
before.  All I know for sure at the moment is that I am extremely
disenchanted with the current TelnetClient implementation.  I think
my previous comments may have been that the subset of telnet used
by FTP didn't require asynchrony and could be implemented in the FTP
class to remove the dependency on TelnetClient.  However, if
TelnetClient is reimplemented with NIO without threads, then there's
no need to remove the dependency.  The bad thing about the dependency
on TelnetClient as currently implemented is that if you want/need to
use many FTPClient instances at the same time, you end up with a bunch
of extra threads that hog up resources.

>* I dont know how much has been added since 1.4.1 to merit a 1.4.2 
>release - maybe we should just go for a 1.5.0 (with FTPS)?

There's that TFTP regression, the fix to which at least two people on
commons-user are waiting for.  I don't know what else users are
waiting for, but if the time frame for a 1.5.0 release with FTPS isn't
far off, then I also don't see any reason for a 1.4.2.

daniel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org