Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:38 PM, David Crossley <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Tim Williams wrote:
> >>
> >> reason I ask, is that we have FOR-1198 and FOR-796 both as "blockers"
> >
> > No such issue. Rather FOR-1108 and FOR-796.
>
> Arghh, typo, Thanks David.  So, are we leaving dispatcher in the
> whiteboard for now?

Hate to be a nag, but... are we leaving dispatcher in the whiteboard
for the 0.9 release?  It's complicated b/c we have [at least] two
things working at odds here:  1) dispatcher has come to be in popular
use despite its status and 2) being in the whiteboard, it wouldn't
make it in the actual release.

So, thoughts?
--tim

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 26/04/2010 13:14, Tim Williams wrote:

> I think there's another consideration
> that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
> that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
> with the dispatcher.

This is a valid comment and one the Forrest committers should all think 
about.

On the flip side, the dispatcher is pretty much the only part of Forrest 
that has received any attention in recent years. It may be irresponsible 
to not release it (from a community development perspective).

Ross

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Brian M Dube <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 08:16:51AM -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 25/05/2010, at 03:15, Tim Williams wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 27/04/2010, at 08:04, David Crossley wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Tim Williams wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Well, if the dispatcher is all that changed in such a release, we
>> >>>>> could do a 0.91 afterwards.  I think there's another consideration
>> >>>>> that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
>> >>>>> that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
>> >>>>> with the dispatcher.  I have a difficult enough time now digging up
>> >>>>> Cocoon knowledge when questions come across but with
>> >>>>> dispatcher-related ones I have no clue.  Maybe it's an unfounded
>> >>>>> concern, I dunno...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I have the same concerns.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps we should get 0.9 released ASAP,
>> >>>> then make a concerted effort to build a Dispatcher
>> >>>> community. Make another release soon after.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I understand what you are all saying, but the dispatcher is basically one transformer and
>> >>> the usage of locationmap for resolving the structurer and contracts. There is not much
>> >>> more to it.
>> >>
>> >> So, would you be against a 0.9 release with dispatcher in the
>> >> whiteboard?  Does anyone have the time in the near future to move it
>> >> from the whiteboard anyway?
>> >
>> >
>> > I am not sure about the community support as reason to keep it in the whiteboard. There are many devs and committer
>> > that uses the dispatcher so I do not see the missing community around it.
>>
>> Thanks Thorsten, fair enough, I'm hoping someone finds time to move it
>> to /plugins soon?  I've been avoiding the dispatcher related 0.9
>> issues until this decision was made so we'll also need to start
>> picking through those issues and figuring which can be pushed off.
>>
>> --tim
>
> I can find the time to move it, but do we have a consensus? It's hard
> to tell when it's so quiet.

As I understand it, it could happen under lazy approval anyway.  I
dunno, maybe a vote is in order.

On the other hand, I need to find our documentation on plugin releases
and how they do/do not necessarily coincide with the app itself - I
think Ross has written about this somewhere...

--tim

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Brian M Dube <bd...@apache.org>]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 08:16:51AM -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 25/05/2010, at 03:15, Tim Williams wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 27/04/2010, at 08:04, David Crossley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tim Williams wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, if the dispatcher is all that changed in such a release, we
> >>>>> could do a 0.91 afterwards.  I think there's another consideration
> >>>>> that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
> >>>>> that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
> >>>>> with the dispatcher.  I have a difficult enough time now digging up
> >>>>> Cocoon knowledge when questions come across but with
> >>>>> dispatcher-related ones I have no clue.  Maybe it's an unfounded
> >>>>> concern, I dunno...
> >>>>
> >>>> I have the same concerns.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps we should get 0.9 released ASAP,
> >>>> then make a concerted effort to build a Dispatcher
> >>>> community. Make another release soon after.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I understand what you are all saying, but the dispatcher is basically one transformer and
> >>> the usage of locationmap for resolving the structurer and contracts. There is not much
> >>> more to it.
> >>
> >> So, would you be against a 0.9 release with dispatcher in the
> >> whiteboard?  Does anyone have the time in the near future to move it
> >> from the whiteboard anyway?
> >
> >
> > I am not sure about the community support as reason to keep it in the whiteboard. There are many devs and committer
> > that uses the dispatcher so I do not see the missing community around it.
> 
> Thanks Thorsten, fair enough, I'm hoping someone finds time to move it
> to /plugins soon?  I've been avoiding the dispatcher related 0.9
> issues until this decision was made so we'll also need to start
> picking through those issues and figuring which can be pushed off.
> 
> --tim

I can find the time to move it, but do we have a consensus? It's hard
to tell when it's so quiet.

-Brian

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 08:16 -0400, Tim Williams wrote:
...
> >>>
> >>> I understand what you are all saying, but the dispatcher is basically one transformer and
> >>> the usage of locationmap for resolving the structurer and contracts. There is not much
> >>> more to it.
> >>
> >> So, would you be against a 0.9 release with dispatcher in the
> >> whiteboard?  Does anyone have the time in the near future to move it
> >> from the whiteboard anyway?
> >
> >
> > I am not sure about the community support as reason to keep it in the whiteboard. There are many devs and committer
> > that uses the dispatcher so I do not see the missing community around it.
> 
> Thanks Thorsten, fair enough, I'm hoping someone finds time to move it
> to /plugins soon?  I've been avoiding the dispatcher related 0.9
> issues until this decision was made so we'll also need to start
> picking through those issues and figuring which can be pushed off.

Yeah, thanks for doing so and the dispatcher should not hold up any
release.

salu2

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 25/05/2010, at 03:15, Tim Williams wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27/04/2010, at 08:04, David Crossley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if the dispatcher is all that changed in such a release, we
>>>>> could do a 0.91 afterwards.  I think there's another consideration
>>>>> that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
>>>>> that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
>>>>> with the dispatcher.  I have a difficult enough time now digging up
>>>>> Cocoon knowledge when questions come across but with
>>>>> dispatcher-related ones I have no clue.  Maybe it's an unfounded
>>>>> concern, I dunno...
>>>>
>>>> I have the same concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we should get 0.9 released ASAP,
>>>> then make a concerted effort to build a Dispatcher
>>>> community. Make another release soon after.
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand what you are all saying, but the dispatcher is basically one transformer and
>>> the usage of locationmap for resolving the structurer and contracts. There is not much
>>> more to it.
>>
>> So, would you be against a 0.9 release with dispatcher in the
>> whiteboard?  Does anyone have the time in the near future to move it
>> from the whiteboard anyway?
>
>
> I am not sure about the community support as reason to keep it in the whiteboard. There are many devs and committer
> that uses the dispatcher so I do not see the missing community around it.

Thanks Thorsten, fair enough, I'm hoping someone finds time to move it
to /plugins soon?  I've been avoiding the dispatcher related 0.9
issues until this decision was made so we'll also need to start
picking through those issues and figuring which can be pushed off.

--tim

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

On 25/05/2010, at 03:15, Tim Williams wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On 27/04/2010, at 08:04, David Crossley wrote:
>> 
>>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Well, if the dispatcher is all that changed in such a release, we
>>>> could do a 0.91 afterwards.  I think there's another consideration
>>>> that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
>>>> that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
>>>> with the dispatcher.  I have a difficult enough time now digging up
>>>> Cocoon knowledge when questions come across but with
>>>> dispatcher-related ones I have no clue.  Maybe it's an unfounded
>>>> concern, I dunno...
>>> 
>>> I have the same concerns.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps we should get 0.9 released ASAP,
>>> then make a concerted effort to build a Dispatcher
>>> community. Make another release soon after.
>> 
>> 
>> I understand what you are all saying, but the dispatcher is basically one transformer and
>> the usage of locationmap for resolving the structurer and contracts. There is not much
>> more to it.
> 
> So, would you be against a 0.9 release with dispatcher in the
> whiteboard?  Does anyone have the time in the near future to move it
> from the whiteboard anyway?


I am not sure about the community support as reason to keep it in the whiteboard. There are many devs and committer that uses the dispatcher so I do not see the missing community around it. 

salu2

Thorsten Scherler <thorsten.at.apache.org>
Open Source Java <consulting, training and solutions>

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 27/04/2010, at 08:04, David Crossley wrote:
>
>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, if the dispatcher is all that changed in such a release, we
>>> could do a 0.91 afterwards.  I think there's another consideration
>>> that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
>>> that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
>>> with the dispatcher.  I have a difficult enough time now digging up
>>> Cocoon knowledge when questions come across but with
>>> dispatcher-related ones I have no clue.  Maybe it's an unfounded
>>> concern, I dunno...
>>
>> I have the same concerns.
>>
>> Perhaps we should get 0.9 released ASAP,
>> then make a concerted effort to build a Dispatcher
>> community. Make another release soon after.
>
>
> I understand what you are all saying, but the dispatcher is basically one transformer and
> the usage of locationmap for resolving the structurer and contracts. There is not much
> more to it.

So, would you be against a 0.9 release with dispatcher in the
whiteboard?  Does anyone have the time in the near future to move it
from the whiteboard anyway?

--tim

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

On 27/04/2010, at 08:04, David Crossley wrote:

> Tim Williams wrote:
>> 
>> Well, if the dispatcher is all that changed in such a release, we
>> could do a 0.91 afterwards.  I think there's another consideration
>> that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
>> that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
>> with the dispatcher.  I have a difficult enough time now digging up
>> Cocoon knowledge when questions come across but with
>> dispatcher-related ones I have no clue.  Maybe it's an unfounded
>> concern, I dunno...
> 
> I have the same concerns.
> 
> Perhaps we should get 0.9 released ASAP,
> then make a concerted effort to build a Dispatcher
> community. Make another release soon after.


I understand what you are all saying, but the dispatcher is basically one transformer and the usage of locationmap for resolving the structurer and contracts. There is not much more to it. 

salu2

Thorsten Scherler <thorsten.at.apache.org>
Open Source Java <consulting, training and solutions>

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>]

Tim Williams wrote:
> 
> Well, if the dispatcher is all that changed in such a release, we
> could do a 0.91 afterwards.  I think there's another consideration
> that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
> that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
> with the dispatcher.  I have a difficult enough time now digging up
> Cocoon knowledge when questions come across but with
> dispatcher-related ones I have no clue.  Maybe it's an unfounded
> concern, I dunno...

I have the same concerns.

Perhaps we should get 0.9 released ASAP,
then make a concerted effort to build a Dispatcher
community. Make another release soon after.

-David

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Cyriaque Dupoirieux
<cy...@pco-innovation.com> wrote:
> le 22/04/2010 12:24 Ross Gardler a écrit :
>> On 22/04/2010 00:54, Tim Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Tim Williams<wi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:38 PM, David Crossley<cr...@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> reason I ask, is that we have FOR-1198 and FOR-796 both as "blockers"
>>>>>>
>>>>> No such issue. Rather FOR-1108 and FOR-796.
>>>>>
>>>> Arghh, typo, Thanks David.  So, are we leaving dispatcher in the
>>>> whiteboard for now?
>>>>
>>> Hate to be a nag, but... are we leaving dispatcher in the whiteboard
>>> for the 0.9 release?  It's complicated b/c we have [at least] two
>>> things working at odds here:  1) dispatcher has come to be in popular
>>> use despite its status and 2) being in the whiteboard, it wouldn't
>>> make it in the actual release.
>>>
>>> So, thoughts?
>>>
>> I've wanted dispatcher in core since the 0.8 release for this very reason.
>>
>> However, now I'm only an observer here I'll refrain from arguing for or
>> against, just settle with pointing out that I think it would be a
>> mistake to leave it out of 0.9 unless it were to delay the release
>> unreasonably (ahem).
>>
>> If it doesn't go in I would want to see a 0.10 within months with
>> dispatcher in.
>>
> I agree with you Ross,
> I think forrest needs a new release to make it clear that forrest is not
> dead...
> But we should also think about a R0.10 planned ASAP.

Well, if the dispatcher is all that changed in such a release, we
could do a 0.91 afterwards.  I think there's another consideration
that I didn't mention too.  I feel irresponsible releasing software
that we can't support and I'm concerned that this would be the case
with the dispatcher.  I have a difficult enough time now digging up
Cocoon knowledge when questions come across but with
dispatcher-related ones I have no clue.  Maybe it's an unfounded
concern, I dunno...

--tim

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Cyriaque Dupoirieux <cy...@pco-innovation.com>]

le 22/04/2010 12:24 Ross Gardler a écrit :
> On 22/04/2010 00:54, Tim Williams wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Tim Williams<wi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:38 PM, David Crossley<cr...@apache.org>  wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> reason I ask, is that we have FOR-1198 and FOR-796 both as "blockers"
>>>>>           
>>>> No such issue. Rather FOR-1108 and FOR-796.
>>>>         
>>> Arghh, typo, Thanks David.  So, are we leaving dispatcher in the
>>> whiteboard for now?
>>>       
>> Hate to be a nag, but... are we leaving dispatcher in the whiteboard
>> for the 0.9 release?  It's complicated b/c we have [at least] two
>> things working at odds here:  1) dispatcher has come to be in popular
>> use despite its status and 2) being in the whiteboard, it wouldn't
>> make it in the actual release.
>>
>> So, thoughts?
>>     
> I've wanted dispatcher in core since the 0.8 release for this very reason.
>
> However, now I'm only an observer here I'll refrain from arguing for or 
> against, just settle with pointing out that I think it would be a 
> mistake to leave it out of 0.9 unless it were to delay the release 
> unreasonably (ahem).
>
> If it doesn't go in I would want to see a 0.10 within months with 
> dispatcher in.
>   
I agree with you Ross,
I think forrest needs a new release to make it clear that forrest is not
dead...
But we should also think about a R0.10 planned ASAP.
(We discussed this one or two years ago and decided at this time that it
should be great to be able to plan new releases every 3 or four months...)

Saluations,
Cyriaque,
> Ross
>
>   

Re: Merging back the dispatcher

[Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>]

On 22/04/2010 00:54, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Tim Williams<wi...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 9:38 PM, David Crossley<cr...@apache.org>  wrote:
>>> Tim Williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> reason I ask, is that we have FOR-1198 and FOR-796 both as "blockers"
>>>
>>> No such issue. Rather FOR-1108 and FOR-796.
>>
>> Arghh, typo, Thanks David.  So, are we leaving dispatcher in the
>> whiteboard for now?
>
> Hate to be a nag, but... are we leaving dispatcher in the whiteboard
> for the 0.9 release?  It's complicated b/c we have [at least] two
> things working at odds here:  1) dispatcher has come to be in popular
> use despite its status and 2) being in the whiteboard, it wouldn't
> make it in the actual release.
>
> So, thoughts?

I've wanted dispatcher in core since the 0.8 release for this very reason.

However, now I'm only an observer here I'll refrain from arguing for or 
against, just settle with pointing out that I think it would be a 
mistake to leave it out of 0.9 unless it were to delay the release 
unreasonably (ahem).

If it doesn't go in I would want to see a 0.10 within months with 
dispatcher in.

Ross