Re: Ready...Set...

[Charles Matthew Chen <ch...@gmail.com>]

> >    Second, I've replaced the headers of all of the source files with
> > the standard Apache header including the Apache license info.  So, the
> > code is ready to commit once the code grant is approved.
>
> The code grant is just part of the incubation process, so as soon as
> we figure out where it goes, you can check it in. The more important
> thing is the structure of the repository. Since we've discussed maven
> and jackrabbit as a model for the repository, just agreement of where
> to put the code is sufficient now.
> >
...
> For now, let's focus on getting the code into the repo and get some
> builds done to replicate what is available outside Apache so the
> community can start to migrate to using the Apache builds.
>
> Craig

  I believe we've agreed on Maven.

  Have we settled on emulating the project structure of Jackrabbit?

  Also, does anyone see a reason to use sub-projects?

Charles.

Re: Ready...Set...

[Charles Matthew Chen <ch...@gmail.com>]

I'm going to follow Craig's suggestion and propose a structure with a
patch this weekend.

Charles.


On 10/1/07, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> >
> > As Carsten can guess I'm not thrilled about that but won't object. It's
> > just that I have very little patience in case Maven causes me to lose a
> > lot of time again because it's unstable and pops up a different error
> > message each time you run it. But that was on Cocoon which is much more
> > complex. We'll see what happens.
> Nowadays Maven runs much more smoothly - and with Sanselan we won't have
> many dependencies anyway, so it *should* work painlessly :) If not, we
> have enough knowledge to fix the issues (hopefully)...
>
> >
> > Another point: Currently Sanselan requires Java 1.4 according to the
> > website. I'd like that to remain so for the time being in order to
> > maximize the number of possible users.
> >
> Yes, good point.
>
> Now, the question for me now is, when we can expect the code drop into
> our svn? Afaik we are through with paper work and Charles could commit
> his stuff, right?
>
> Carsten
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
>

Re: Ready...Set...

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> 
> As Carsten can guess I'm not thrilled about that but won't object. It's
> just that I have very little patience in case Maven causes me to lose a
> lot of time again because it's unstable and pops up a different error
> message each time you run it. But that was on Cocoon which is much more
> complex. We'll see what happens.
Nowadays Maven runs much more smoothly - and with Sanselan we won't have
many dependencies anyway, so it *should* work painlessly :) If not, we
have enough knowledge to fix the issues (hopefully)...

> 
> Another point: Currently Sanselan requires Java 1.4 according to the
> website. I'd like that to remain so for the time being in order to
> maximize the number of possible users.
> 
Yes, good point.

Now, the question for me now is, when we can expect the code drop into
our svn? Afaik we are through with paper work and Charles could commit
his stuff, right?

Carsten

-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org

Re: Ready...Set...

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>]

Hello everyone,

finally dropping in myself. I've been on holidays until now. 

On 01.10.2007 02:25:08 Charles Matthew Chen wrote:
>   I believe we've agreed on Maven.

As Carsten can guess I'm not thrilled about that but won't object. It's
just that I have very little patience in case Maven causes me to lose a
lot of time again because it's unstable and pops up a different error
message each time you run it. But that was on Cocoon which is much more
complex. We'll see what happens.

>   Have we settled on emulating the project structure of Jackrabbit?

I'm fine with that.

>   Also, does anyone see a reason to use sub-projects?

Not at the moment. Also, I don't think it makes much sense to split into
api and impl since there won't likely be more than one implementation of
the API. If that still happens it's easy to take them apart. A possible
adapter package to plug Sanselan into ImageIO might make a better
candidate for a separate module.

FYI, in the next few months I'll be refactoring the whole image support
in FOP which I will take as an opportunity to add a plug-in for Sanselan.
That way we can make sure the library has at least one more customer.

Another point: Currently Sanselan requires Java 1.4 according to the
website. I'd like that to remain so for the time being in order to
maximize the number of possible users.

Jeremias Maerki

Re: Ready...Set...

[Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>]

On Sep 30, 2007, at 5:25 PM, Charles Matthew Chen wrote:

>>>    Second, I've replaced the headers of all of the source files with
>>> the standard Apache header including the Apache license info.   
>>> So, the
>>> code is ready to commit once the code grant is approved.
>>
>> The code grant is just part of the incubation process, so as soon as
>> we figure out where it goes, you can check it in. The more important
>> thing is the structure of the repository. Since we've discussed maven
>> and jackrabbit as a model for the repository, just agreement of where
>> to put the code is sufficient now.
>>
> ...
>> For now, let's focus on getting the code into the repo and get some
>> builds done to replicate what is available outside Apache so the
>> community can start to migrate to using the Apache builds.
>>
>> Craig
>
>   I believe we've agreed on Maven.

I've heard no dissent.
>
>   Have we settled on emulating the project structure of Jackrabbit?

I think so. To double check, you could always build the sanselan  
structure as you would model Jackrabbit, create a patch using svn and  
everyone could take a look.
>
>   Also, does anyone see a reason to use sub-projects?

Not from my perspective.

Craig
>
> Charles.

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!