Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 59853 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2005 14:10:50 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Jan 2005 14:10:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 96606 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jan 2005 14:10:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-directory-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 96563 invoked by uid 500); 24 Jan 2005 14:10:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact directory-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list directory-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 96533 invoked by uid 99); 24 Jan 2005 14:10:49 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from synntm8.optimumgroup.com (HELO synntm10) (207.236.211.98) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:10:49 -0800 Received: from synntm8.mtl.optimumgroup.com ([10.10.0.20]) by synntm10 with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:10:41 -0500 Received: by synntm8.mtl.optimumgroup.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.3) id ; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:10:44 -0500 Message-ID: <777DDD941E46D41181B300508BAE014F0DDD40F2@synntm8.mtl.optimumgroup.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Tenc=E9=2C_Vincent=22?= To: 'Apache Directory Developers List' Subject: RE: [asn.1] sitedocs update for 0.3 dev cycle - new refactoring p age is up Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:10:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2005 14:10:41.0421 (UTC) FILETIME=[7CB183D0:01C5021E] X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > Also on a separate note. Perhaps I've done the wrong thing here in > trying to get others interested in asn1 by refactoring it. A massive > restructuring may not have been the best route to go. Perhaps we can > see if you can first massage out the Snacc4J deps instead. I'm > realizing my approach to cross reactivity might have been flawed :(. You're doing good here, no worry. There's been a lot of work put into the asn1 suproject obviously and you're right it's pretty hard to just jump in and understand everything straight. Focusing on the snacc dependency is a good idea. Do you have more details on this? - Vincent