commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in sandbox - Take2
Date Sat, 19 Mar 2011 15:05:52 GMT
On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Rahul,
> thanks once again for the wise suggestions, much more than appreciated!
>
> I underestimated the importance of the users over the active
> developers, so I totally agree with you, moving to dormant is
> premature.
>
> I was aware about breaking APIs compatibility, since we had to face
> the same problem also in [pool2], I thought it would have been a good
> idea implementing the sandbox in the o.a.c.digester3[1] package, looks
> like it is compliant to the suggestions you proposed.
>
> I like your idea of branching 1.X, 2.X and put 3 on trunk, shall we
> call a vote before going on?
+1
I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure
we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it. 


Phil
> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day,
> Simo
>
> [1] http://s.apache.org/VLZ
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simone Tripodi
>> <simonetripodi@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all mates!!!
>>> I need your support on advising our users that a new version of
>>> Digester is available on sandbox, I already sent more than once an
>>> email on users ML but never got a reply, maybe my name is not so
>>> influent between users or maybe the Digester is not so popular as I
>>> still think... but I wouldn't have wasted the time I invested :P
>>>
>>> So, IMHO there are few points that deserve our attention, such:
>>>
>>>  * if the Digester is out of our users' interest, it should be -
>>> sadly! - moved to the Dormant;
>> <snip/>
>>
>> We've users, though no active developers beyond you -- as long as
>> you're interested I think a move to dormant is premature.
>>
>>
>>>  * if the previous tense is wrong:
>>>    * just maintain the current implementation in trunk, or
>>>    * evaluate if the new Digester3 is a good candidate to replace the
>>> proper one
>>>
>> <snap/>
>>
>> Third option would be to do both. More below.
>>
>>
>>> I'm sure that together we can find the right way, for those interested
>>> knowing more details, Digester3 docs is on[1] with samples.
>>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Having looked at the samples and API, its clearly not compatible (this
>> is not a statement about its value). I don't think we should use the
>> same Java packages (oac.digester.*) since this isn't a drop-in
>> replacement. However, if you are keen on releasing this (I don't have
>> time to help in near future), an option would be to promote and
>> release the sandbox code while keeping the oac.digester3.* packages.
>>
>> This would mean doing both: (a) retaining current code in 1.x and 2.x
>> branches in case future releases need to be made on those lines and
>> (b) moving sandbox code to trunk as 3.x line (while keeping the
>> oac.digester3.* packages).
>>
>> -Rahul
>>
>>
>>> Looking forward to read from you soon, have a nice day!!!
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> [1] http://commons.apache.org/sandbox/digester3/
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


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


Mime
View raw message