2013/1/15 Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com> > On 01/15/2013 07:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > > On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > >> Hi, > > > > Hi Thomas > > > > A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the > > same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get rid of the > > old Ant build if we want to. > > I think the ant build script it is used by gump atm. > > > One thing that I'd like to do is to restructure the source code into > > several separate Maven modules, so that there is a specific module for > > commons-logging-api. The current setup is error prone, as it is > > extracting certain files from certain archives and then repackaging them > > again, with the risk of loosing meta data like MANIFEST.MF. > > Yes I like that idea, the current packaging and testing is quite odd, > e.g. one has to run mvn integration-test to do the actual unit tests. > > btw. does anybody know how to automatically do a verify phase when doing > a mvn site, otherwise the results of the integration-tests are not > published. > > >> I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and > >> aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind: > >> > >> * update to Java 5 > > > > I'm -1 on this change. I don't see any reason to do it. We don't need > > features from a more recent Java version in commons-logging. As others > > have said: most users of commons-logging are old and older apps. > > In general I am fine with keeping the current JDK compatibility, but > there are also a few points in favor of such a change: > > * how can we ensure compatibility with such outdated JDKs today? > minimum jdk I have installed is JDK 1.5 > > * the codebase is at parts quite complex as it has to deal with > such a wide range of supported JDKs. Reducing the number for (future) > releases would simplify the maintenance (and we could remove some > old code for pre-1.4 JDKs). > > There are still lots of other (non-legacy) projects that use > commons-logging, e.g. spring. But maybe we could also keep the 1.x > branch on java 1.1, and create a 2.x branch which targets java 5. >
Maybe we can ask Spring folks, what they would like to see in a new release, like we did for Tomcat? > > >> * comply to default maven structure > > > > +1 > > already did so. > > >> * update to Junit 4 > > > > +1 > > still open. > > >> * fix the open issues wrt thread safety > > Sebb created some issues about this topic, and there is one > (reproducible) deadlock scenario with the WeakHashtable. > > Thomas > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
