You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org> on 2011/03/16 19:31:05 UTC
[discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
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;
* 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
I'm sure that together we can find the right way, for those interested
knowing more details, Digester3 docs is on[1] with samples.
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
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Before the release we should improve the unit test coverage. A
migration guide with step by step help would be a nice addition.
Gary
On Mar 16, 2011, at 14:31, Simone Tripodi <si...@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;
> * 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
>
> I'm sure that together we can find the right way, for those interested
> knowing more details, Digester3 docs is on[1] with samples.
>
> 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
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
hahaha thanks!
BTW I really hope there will be another chance to come back in charge
with this proposal :)
Have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Simone Tripodi
> <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Matt!!!
>> I noticed 2 important points I'd like to discuss:
>>
>> 1) generally speaking, the bigger part of the users are lazy: they
>> just want to grab latest released artifact of XXX component with Maven
>> and use it, so it is hard to obtain feedbacks from APIs not released
>> yet;
>> 2) committers/PMCs interested on Digester is reduced: we got two +1s,
>> one +0 and I didn't express my opinion (If I would have done it, in my
>> country they would have called me Mafia guy :D )
>>
>> I didn't understand when you wrote "I'm certainly not going to twist
>> your arm": of course you wouldn't do it physically :D but I didn't
>> understand in which sense :P
>>
>
> :) Just an expression meaning to try to make you do something against
> your will.
>
> Matt
>
>> Have a nice day, all the best!
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Simone Tripodi
>>> <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi all guys,
>>>> looks like there's not enough activity/interest on new Digester, I
>>>> suggest to suspend this topic for a while and come speaking about it
>>>> until there will be interest from the users.
>>>> Thanks to all that took part of the discussion!
>>>> All the best, have a nice day,
>>>> Simo
>>>
>>> Personally, I think that just because the users aren't clamoring for
>>> the new API doesn't mean they wouldn't like it if Digester3 were
>>> released. At the same time, I'm certainly not going to twist your
>>> arm.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>>> <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> thanks for the trust guys!!! I won't express my vote, it would be too
>>>>> incorrect IMHO. I'll keep my finger crossed to see at least the 3
>>>>> consensus :)
>>>>> Have a nice weekend!
>>>>> Simo
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
>>>>>>> this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
>>>>>>> require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
>>>>>>> bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
>>>>>>> somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the API personally, and would +1 this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Rahul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Simone Tripodi
<si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Matt!!!
> I noticed 2 important points I'd like to discuss:
>
> 1) generally speaking, the bigger part of the users are lazy: they
> just want to grab latest released artifact of XXX component with Maven
> and use it, so it is hard to obtain feedbacks from APIs not released
> yet;
> 2) committers/PMCs interested on Digester is reduced: we got two +1s,
> one +0 and I didn't express my opinion (If I would have done it, in my
> country they would have called me Mafia guy :D )
>
> I didn't understand when you wrote "I'm certainly not going to twist
> your arm": of course you wouldn't do it physically :D but I didn't
> understand in which sense :P
>
:) Just an expression meaning to try to make you do something against
your will.
Matt
> Have a nice day, all the best!
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Simone Tripodi
>> <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all guys,
>>> looks like there's not enough activity/interest on new Digester, I
>>> suggest to suspend this topic for a while and come speaking about it
>>> until there will be interest from the users.
>>> Thanks to all that took part of the discussion!
>>> All the best, have a nice day,
>>> Simo
>>
>> Personally, I think that just because the users aren't clamoring for
>> the new API doesn't mean they wouldn't like it if Digester3 were
>> released. At the same time, I'm certainly not going to twist your
>> arm.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>> <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> thanks for the trust guys!!! I won't express my vote, it would be too
>>>> incorrect IMHO. I'll keep my finger crossed to see at least the 3
>>>> consensus :)
>>>> Have a nice weekend!
>>>> Simo
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
>>>>>> this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
>>>>>> require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
>>>>>> bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
>>>>>> somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the API personally, and would +1 this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rahul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Matt!!!
I noticed 2 important points I'd like to discuss:
1) generally speaking, the bigger part of the users are lazy: they
just want to grab latest released artifact of XXX component with Maven
and use it, so it is hard to obtain feedbacks from APIs not released
yet;
2) committers/PMCs interested on Digester is reduced: we got two +1s,
one +0 and I didn't express my opinion (If I would have done it, in my
country they would have called me Mafia guy :D )
I didn't understand when you wrote "I'm certainly not going to twist
your arm": of course you wouldn't do it physically :D but I didn't
understand in which sense :P
Have a nice day, all the best!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Simone Tripodi
> <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi all guys,
>> looks like there's not enough activity/interest on new Digester, I
>> suggest to suspend this topic for a while and come speaking about it
>> until there will be interest from the users.
>> Thanks to all that took part of the discussion!
>> All the best, have a nice day,
>> Simo
>
> Personally, I think that just because the users aren't clamoring for
> the new API doesn't mean they wouldn't like it if Digester3 were
> released. At the same time, I'm certainly not going to twist your
> arm.
>
> Matt
>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Simone Tripodi
>> <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> thanks for the trust guys!!! I won't express my vote, it would be too
>>> incorrect IMHO. I'll keep my finger crossed to see at least the 3
>>> consensus :)
>>> Have a nice weekend!
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
>>>>> this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
>>>>> require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
>>>>> bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
>>>>> somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the API personally, and would +1 this.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>> -Rahul
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Simone Tripodi
<si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all guys,
> looks like there's not enough activity/interest on new Digester, I
> suggest to suspend this topic for a while and come speaking about it
> until there will be interest from the users.
> Thanks to all that took part of the discussion!
> All the best, have a nice day,
> Simo
Personally, I think that just because the users aren't clamoring for
the new API doesn't mean they wouldn't like it if Digester3 were
released. At the same time, I'm certainly not going to twist your
arm.
Matt
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Simone Tripodi
> <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> thanks for the trust guys!!! I won't express my vote, it would be too
>> incorrect IMHO. I'll keep my finger crossed to see at least the 3
>> consensus :)
>> Have a nice weekend!
>> Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>> +1
>>>>> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>>>>>
>>>> <snip/>
>>>>
>>>> Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
>>>> this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
>>>> require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
>>>> bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
>>>> somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the API personally, and would +1 this.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>> -Rahul
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi all guys,
looks like there's not enough activity/interest on new Digester, I
suggest to suspend this topic for a while and come speaking about it
until there will be interest from the users.
Thanks to all that took part of the discussion!
All the best, have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Simone Tripodi
<si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> thanks for the trust guys!!! I won't express my vote, it would be too
> incorrect IMHO. I'll keep my finger crossed to see at least the 3
> consensus :)
> Have a nice weekend!
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>> +1
>>>> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>> Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
>>> this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
>>> require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
>>> bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
>>> somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.
>>>
>>
>> I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the API personally, and would +1 this.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>> -Rahul
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
thanks for the trust guys!!! I won't express my vote, it would be too
incorrect IMHO. I'll keep my finger crossed to see at least the 3
consensus :)
Have a nice weekend!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>> +1
>>> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
>> this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
>> require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
>> bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
>> somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.
>>
>
> I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the API personally, and would +1 this.
>
> Matt
>
>> -Rahul
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in sandbox - Take2
Posted by Matt Benson <gu...@gmail.com>.
On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> 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?
>> +1
>> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>>
> <snip/>
>
> Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
> this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
> require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
> bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
> somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.
>
I hesitate to throw in an opinion as I've never really used digester, but I quite like the API personally, and would +1 this.
Matt
> -Rahul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> 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?
> +1
> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>
<snip/>
Not that I care for more process, but I'd like to see 3+ of us say
this is the API they'd like to see for digester3. We also generally
require votes for getting stuff out of sandbox so a vote may not be a
bad idea (even if this isn't a new component, its a new API -- and
somewhere in there, the lines are blurred). I'm +0.
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
Hi Phil!!!
thanks for you feedbacks!!! Sure, there's no rush, let's do things
taking the needed time :)
Have a nice weekend, all the best,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> 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?
> +1
> I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
>
>
> Phil
>> 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 <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simone Tripodi
>>> <si...@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
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 3/19/11 4:54 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> 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?
+1
I don't think we need a VOTE on this, I would say wait a couple of more days to make sure we have (lazy) consensus and then just do it.
Phil
> 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 <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simone Tripodi
>> <si...@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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Simone Tripodi <si...@apache.org>.
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 <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simone Tripodi
> <si...@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
Re: [discuss][Digester] The future of Digester an the Digester3 in
sandbox - Take2
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Simone Tripodi
<si...@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