commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Hohwiller <jo...@j-hohwiller.de>
Subject Re: [proxy] Cutting a release...
Date Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:28:44 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

James Carman wrote:
> All,
Hi James,
> 
> It's been a while since Commons Proxy has had any attention, but I
> have received two emails in the past two days about it.  So, I would
> like to cut a 1.0 release for it. 
A 1.0 would be excellent. I am also still hoping this project will come out of
sandbox. The problem seems to be that the apache foundation started to
only put projects out on the official places if there is a "healty community".
However commons-proxy is a lib with a tight focus and already does what is needs
to do. There are no great new features to discuss.
In my opinion we should bring out a 1.0 that is well tested
and then I personally do NOT see why it should remain in sandbox.

Can someone give a reason against?

Should otherwise the project start to add various of other utilities
into commons-proxy only in order that the community grows, bugs are made and
fixed, etc.?

If I look at maven2 -what is an excellent tool- and the dependency-management
it introduces, then I see that if I depend on axis2, I also depend on
commons-fileupload, commons-httpclient and on commons-logging and therefore on
avalon-framework, junit, logkit, etc. etc. So my client needs JUnit or avalon to
talk SOAP?

Maven2 is right with the way it goes. But projects have to focus more on
specific issues. This is exactly what commons-proxy does.

BTW: I have seen that commons-proxy is declaring its dependencies with the scope
"provided" what prevents from the problem noted above with the transitive
dependencies. Maybe you should have a chat with the maven guyz if it should be
<optional>true</optional> instead. Do you know the difference? I can not
remember right now...

> I know I need to do a little work,
> since the site is a bit out-dated (the SVN links are incorrect) from
> the TLP move.  Were there any more objections to anything fundamental
> with Proxy?  I believe my last release candidate failed because of
> some signature problems or something.  I can't remember.
> 
> James

Regards
  Jörg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG/VXsmPuec2Dcv/8RAgBIAKCPSUsAOR+UcEN1kwIkMzEk/n2BqQCdFSZ3
4JVYZ352nRGIbO4a27q9u/w=
=lB27
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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


Mime
View raw message