On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@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 > <simonetrip...@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 <gudnabr...@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 <phil.ste...@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-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
