hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Johnson" <e...@tibco.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Re: 2.0 release
Date Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:29:10 GMT


OK, my vote is non-binding, but with no test cases, and no code in 
HttpClient that uses the functions, we SHOULD deprecate them.

Even if we decide later, as Sung-Gu suggested, that we might need to 
ressurrect them, we should still deprecate them!  Deprecating them is a 
flag for the users of the library that the functions may not behave as 
expected, which is almost certainly true based on the lack of test 
cases, confusion on this list, confusing documentation, and absence of 
any uses within HttpClient.


Adrian Sutton wrote:

> All,
> Personally, I believe that this issue has gone on far too long and so 
> I  would like to propose a vote:
> I move the motion that the following methods from  
> org.apache.commons.httpclient.util.URIUtil be depreciated for the 2.0  
> release and removed in a future release:
> toDocumentCharset(String)
> toDocumentCharset(String, String)
> toProtocolCharset(String)
> toProtocolCharset(String, String)
> toUsingCharset(String, String, String)
> Please cast your votes:
> +1 - The methods should be depreciated
> 0 - Active Abstain (no response being a passive abstain)
> -1 - The methods should not be depreciated (veto)  Veto's must 
> contain  an explanation of why the veto is appropriate.
> Under Jakarta's voting guidelines  
> (http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html) product changes (such  
> as this) are subject to lazy consensus, however in this case I would  
> like to achieve consensus on the issue and as such the vote will be  
> considered passed if there are 3 binding +1 votes and no binding 
> vetos  or the proposal will be turned down if there are any -1 votes.
> I would encourage non-committers to submit non-binding votes as well,  
> particularly if you can see a use for the methods in question.
> Here's my +1.
> Regards,
> Adrian Sutton.
> On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 06:25  PM, Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote:

View raw message