You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> on 2005/09/04 08:23:40 UTC
[proxy] Moving to commons proper...
All,
Do we have any minimum requirements for moving a component from the sandbox
to commons proper? I'm just trying to get an idea of what sort of factors
would cause someone to vote against moving a component into proper.
I don't think Commons Proxy is quite ready. The API has been somewhat
volatile as Knut and I have been hashing out ideas about what it should look
like. We recently (tonight) added support for "invocation handler proxies",
which use a java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler to handle all method
invocations.
Thanks,
James
RE: [proxy] Moving to commons proper...
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
How do we gauge the community interest and what is considered "strong"?
I think proxy is close to an initial release. I would like to improve the
test coverage a bit more, but as far as the API is concerned, I think it's
pretty close.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.steitz@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 12:17 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [proxy] Moving to commons proper...
Two other things that we like to see:
* Strong community interest - so we can be confident that it will grow and
be maintained
* Close to ready for initial release
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [proxy] Moving to commons proper...
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
Two other things that we like to see:
* Strong community interest - so we can be confident that it will grow and
be maintained
* Close to ready for initial release
Phil
RE: [proxy] Moving to commons proper...
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
Yes, I would agree that HiveMind was ill-suited as a "commons" project.
SCXML sounds a bit suspect, too. It should also probably be a top-level
Jakarta project.
I don't think Commons Proxy is in any danger of not being considered a
common utility package, though. I think that once folks find out about it,
they would use it. It's kind of an "if you build it they will come"
situation. The problem I see is that people won't be able to find out about
it, since it's in the sandbox. There are nightly builds available (once we
can get this stuff to actually compile), but I don't know how likely it is
that people are going to download it and use it from a nightly build. I
would like to start trying to migrate HiveMind over to using Commons Proxy,
but that's also somewhat difficult with it being in the sandbox.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 6:23 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [proxy] Moving to commons proper...
James Carman wrote:
> Do we have any minimum requirements for moving a component from the
sandbox
> to commons proper? I'm just trying to get an idea of what sort of factors
> would cause someone to vote against moving a component into proper.
One thing I want to watch out for now is whether projects are really
suited for commons. (NB. I haven't looked at proxy)
For example, jelly is a project IMHO entirely unsuited to commons (its a
language, not a library). Hivemind was unsuited too, and left (its a
framework, not a library). I also have concerns about SCXML (its an xml
spec, not a library).
Stphen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [proxy] Moving to commons proper...
Posted by Stephen Colebourne <sc...@btopenworld.com>.
James Carman wrote:
> Do we have any minimum requirements for moving a component from the sandbox
> to commons proper? I'm just trying to get an idea of what sort of factors
> would cause someone to vote against moving a component into proper.
One thing I want to watch out for now is whether projects are really
suited for commons. (NB. I haven't looked at proxy)
For example, jelly is a project IMHO entirely unsuited to commons (its a
language, not a library). Hivemind was unsuited too, and left (its a
framework, not a library). I also have concerns about SCXML (its an xml
spec, not a library).
Stphen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org