directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Phil Steitz" <>
Subject RE: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
Date Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:41:59 GMT
As a point of clarification, the full javadoc is included in the binary naming dist.  It is,
however, divided among the maven subprojects under the /docs directory, which is a full image
of the web site.  I agree with Steve that full javadoc should be provided as part of the release
I could easily add the /docs directory to the source distribution if others think that would
be better. I can also work on generating "integrated" javadoc in one top-level /apidocs directory
if that is a requirement.
To release naming, however, we need consensus on the issue raised in my previous post to this
thread:  are we going to release "components" from the Directory project at this time?  If
the answer is "no" we need to hold off releasing naming from this project.  Assuming the answer
is "yes" I would also like to get review and support from the tomcat community (where almost
all of the code originated) before release.  In any case, I want to settle the question about
components before we release one.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Alex Karasulu [] 
	Sent: Tue 1/4/2005 12:21 PM 
	To: Apache Directory Developers List 
	Subject: Re: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II

	Excuse my late response to recent messages on this thread - I've been out of pocket. 
	WRT Steve's comments, I fixed the license issues a couple days ago, 15 minutes after he noticed
the problem to be exact.  As for Javadocs, naming is a JNDI provider and any Javadocs would
be on internal classes and interfaces.  The exposed API is the JNDI, which is documented in
the Jdk docs.  However providing javadocs on these internal classes on the site and in the
distro are a plus.  IMO this should not prevent the release though.  Also note Steve, that
being in the incubator does not prevent us from releasing: it just imposes stricter criteria.
	Now WRT the other issues concerning the release of internal packages I can still go both
ways but am leaning now more towards keeping it simple with the core products.  I think Brett's
commentary pulled me over.  Although no one cast a veto with -0 votes on this matter these
opinions are very important.  Brett, Noel, Nicola, Roy, and you Phil made some excellent points
and you guys are much more experienced here than I.  This is where one must just concede to
the wisdom of others and the consensus of the community.  So with that said I'm on board with
the external release of the server and naming.  Other API's can be managed as internal releases
like with Cocoon as Nicola pointed out which has several jars composing the server.
	To summarize we have several +1s and the consensus to only release our core products.  However
Steve does have a veto and this must be addressed. 
	After the responses to your veto Steve are you willing to retract it? Otherwise we're still
in limbo here :).   Personally I'd like to get on with development and there is sooo much
to do.
	Thanks much,
	> From: "Stephen McConnell" <>
	> Date: 2005/01/04 Tue AM 09:21:51 EST
	> To: "'Apache Directory Developers List'" <>
	> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
	> Assumption is correct.
	> Steve.
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Phil Steitz []
	> Sent: 05 January 2005 00:45
	> To: Apache Directory Developers List
	> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
	> I assume comments below are about the candidate [naming] dist.  Thanks.
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Berin Loritsch []
	> Sent: Tue 1/4/2005 6:47 AM
	> To: Apache Directory Developers List
	> Cc:
	> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Directory project releases II
	> Stephen McConnell wrote:
	> >[ ] +1 Approve the request to release
	> >[x] -1 Reject the request to release
	> >[ ] +0 Abstain
	> >
	> >1. wrong license in distribution
	> >
	> >
	> It's not the ASL 2.0?  We need to fix that.  Where did you notice the
	> ASL 2.0 license missing?
	> psteitz: That is my fault.  The licenses in the source were changed last
	> year, as was license.xml, but I must have missed LICENSE.txt.  Alex fixed it
	> in svn and I fixed the candidate distro last night.
	> >2. no javadoc package in the dist
	> psteitz: The javadoc is in the binary dist only.  Could be added to source.
	> >3. directory has not exited incubator and so long as this project
	> >   is in incubator it isn't real
	> >
	> >
	> At this point in the game I don't think either of these are a blocker.
	> Think of it as an early access release.
	> --
	> "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build
	> bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce
	> bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
	>                 - Rich Cook

View raw message