Hi David, first of all, thanks for your efforts bringing back to life the jdbcprovider :-) Maybe I'm mistaken, but I recall we dropped from the core distribution b/c it wasn't widely used at the time, and having it as a separate jar didn't seem much hassle. However, due to package renaming, the API changed and the provider stopped working on recent versions. Having it as contributed provider again is the first step of merging it into trunk, being the second enough people using it.
As for the contribution questions, you can name the package as you prefere; it's your contribution so you're free to do as you want. Regarding the hosting, perhaps the simpler way is to upload it to a new page on JSPWiki's wiki, or you may open a project on github or similar. In any case, please do reference it from https://jspwiki-wiki.apache.org/Wiki.jsp?page=ContributedProviders Btw, https://jspwiki-wiki.apache.org/Edit.jsp?page=HowToWriteAPageProvider still needs to be written... O:-D br, juan pablo On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:12 AM, David Emerson <demer...@spindrift.com> wrote: > I've been using a really old version of JSPWiki and storing pages via the > old JDBCProvider. I'd like to update to the latest release, but the page > provider isn't compatible at the moment. For fun, I tried to get the latest > version of the code I could find to compile against the latest JSPWiki > code, which I was able to do. I also need to add a new SQL query for a new > overload of pageExists, but that looks pretty straightforward. > > If I can get this working it makes sense to contribute it back to the > project, but I have a few questions. I moved the code from it's original > package to a new package under the existing package for the core providers. > Would you want it moved out of there back to it's original package > structure? I'd like to contribute this, but don't want to commit to owning > it long term (of course I'm fine with fixing bugs until it seems stable). I > also don't really want to host it's download. I actually think it makes > sense for it to be a core provider, but I'm not sure if there are issues > with that since it was originally developed as a contributed provider. > Also, if you folks have access to JDBCProvider code more recent than June > 2006, I'd re-do my fixes against that instead. Any suggestions on how to > proceed? > > > > >
