commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in sandbox - Take2
Date Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:54:13 GMT
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?
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


Mime
View raw message