commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benedikt Ritter <benerit...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [logging] Cleanup of trunk
Date Tue, 15 Jan 2013 21:00:02 GMT
2013/1/15 Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidhart@gmail.com>

> On 01/15/2013 07:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> > Hi Thomas
> >
> > A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
> > same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get rid of the
> > old Ant build if we want to.
>
> I think the ant build script it is used by gump atm.
>
> > One thing that I'd like to do is to restructure the source code into
> > several separate Maven modules, so that there is a specific module for
> > commons-logging-api. The current setup is error prone, as it is
> > extracting certain files from certain archives and then repackaging them
> > again, with the risk of loosing meta data like MANIFEST.MF.
>
> Yes I like that idea, the current packaging and testing is quite odd,
> e.g. one has to run mvn integration-test to do the actual unit tests.
>
> btw. does anybody know how to automatically do a verify phase when doing
> a mvn site, otherwise the results of the integration-tests are not
> published.
>
> >> I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
> >> aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
> >>
> >>  * update to Java 5
> >
> > I'm -1 on this change. I don't see any reason to do it. We don't need
> > features from a more recent Java version in commons-logging. As others
> > have said: most users of commons-logging are old and older apps.
>
> In general I am fine with keeping the current JDK compatibility, but
> there are also a few points in favor of such a change:
>
>  * how can we ensure compatibility with such outdated JDKs today?
>    minimum jdk I have installed is JDK 1.5
>
>  * the codebase is at parts quite complex as it has to deal with
>    such a wide range of supported JDKs. Reducing the number for (future)
>    releases would simplify the maintenance (and we could remove some
>    old code for pre-1.4 JDKs).
>
> There are still lots of other (non-legacy) projects that use
> commons-logging, e.g. spring. But maybe we could also keep the 1.x
> branch on java 1.1, and create a 2.x branch which targets java 5.
>

Maybe we can ask Spring folks, what they would like to see in a new
release, like we did for Tomcat?


>
> >>  * comply to default maven structure
> >
> > +1
>
> already did so.
>
> >>  * update to Junit 4
> >
> > +1
>
> still open.
>
> >>  * fix the open issues wrt thread safety
>
> Sebb created some issues about this topic, and there is one
> (reproducible) deadlock scenario with the WeakHashtable.
>
> Thomas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message