Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > simon wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > >> sebb wrote: > >>> AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the > >>> artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. > >>> > >>> In the c

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 9:01 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the > artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. Absolutely correct, I interpret as being about the copyright in our source, not things we redistribute. And given

RE: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

Hi Gary, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hello: > > The ant build in this RC fails on Sun Java 1.3.1 [1] because > the unit tests use the XML formatter which depend on W3C > code. The W3C code is in Java 1.4 but not 1.3. The ant build > also reports, apparently non-fatal errors [1] when attempting > to fet

Fwd: [vfs] Cancellation of copy/move operation / Overal project agility

Forwarding to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message -- From: Markus Binsteiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Dec 28, 2007 7:48 AM Subject: [vfs] Cancellation of copy/move operation / Overal project agility To: Jakarta Commons Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi. I saw there is a topi

Re: [pool] 1.4-RC2 available for review

On Jan 9, 2008 2:05 AM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:10 PM > > > > On Jan 7, 2008 8:02 PM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello All: > > > > > > I've tested building and unit testing on a

RE: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 2:50 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release > > Dennis Lundberg wrote: > > I just feel that there is sooo much discussion necessary to pull > > something off here in

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Dennis Lundberg wrote: I just feel that there is sooo much discussion necessary to pull something off here in commons. We have a saying in Sweden that sums it up, but I'm not sure how it works after translation. It goes something like this: "Much talk, but no work" I wish that some of the

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

simon wrote: On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: sebb wrote: AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. In the case of Commons, dependencies are normally not included in the distribution, and

Re: [exec] How to support the various Logging APIs?!

Siegfried Goeschl wrote: Because using commons-logging is not undisputed and log4j/jdk logging would reduce the number of dependencies for a user I agree. Lots of debate have already occured on this subject, and no consensus reached. This simply shows this is a matter of taste, and probably

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

simon wrote: On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:20 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: Simon Kitching wrote: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information about

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > sebb wrote: > > AIUI, the NOTICE file is not about dependencies, it is about the > > artefacts that are actually included in the distribution. > > > > In the case of Commons, dependencies are normally not included in the > > distribution

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 21:20 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > Simon Kitching wrote: > > Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > >> On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* > >>> informat

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Simon Kitching wrote: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* *never*

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

sebb wrote: On 10/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Original Message From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Original Message From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] +1 to this sent

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 1:38 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <

Re: [IO] IO 1.4 on Java 1.3 , IO 1.5 on Java 1.4

On Jan 10, 2008 6:14 PM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello: > > I would like to propose simplifying the code and current release by: > > - Keeping IO 1.4 on Java 1.3 only. This means removing the Java 1.4 > conditional code execution. There isn't any conditional code execution - jus

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 10, 2008 12:25 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 11:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 10:16 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 9, 2008 4:4

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

On 1/10/08, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on > > > >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist > > -1: > The NOTICE files in the jars are non-standard. They also refer

Re: [all] project.xml name element inconsistency

On 1/10/08, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all: > > I am seeing two types of names in project.xml name elements. For a project > "Foo": > > - Foo > - Commons Foo > > Can we standardize one pattern for all [commons] projects? > > Current examples: > > Codec (SVN) > Commons Pool (SV

RE: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

Hello: The ant build in this RC fails on Sun Java 1.3.1 [1] because the unit tests use the XML formatter which depend on W3C code. The W3C code is in Java 1.4 but not 1.3. The ant build also reports, apparently non-fatal errors [1] when attempting to fetch non-existent files out of the maven re

[IO] IO 1.4 on Java 1.3 , IO 1.5 on Java 1.4

Hello: I would like to propose simplifying the code and current release by: - Keeping IO 1.4 on Java 1.3 only. This means removing the Java 1.4 conditional code execution. - Setting the requirement for IO 1.5 on Java 1.4, allowing NIO implementations at will. Thoughts? Is this something we sh

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

The artifacts look all good to me. So if a solution/consensus for the problems with NOTICE is found, I am +1 for this release. Oliver Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > Hi, > > I have prepared a third release candidate of commons-fileupload > 1.2.1. A list of changes since rc2 and things that I haven't c

Re: [exec] How to support the various Logging APIs?!

> +) if we support commons-logging we might also need JDK logger, log4j and > avalon-logger commons-logging is a _wrapper_ that can be mapped to any of these. And if commons-logging doesn't provide an out-of-the-box mapping, then slf4j might. The point of using the commons-logging API is that you

RE: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

> -Original Message- > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:23 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release > > Original Message > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 10/01/2008

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 17:08 +, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008 3:41 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on > > > > > >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileup

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

On 10/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008 3:41 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on > > > > > >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupl

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

On Jan 10, 2008 3:41 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on > > > >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist > > -1: > The NOTICE files in the jars are non-standard. Th

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 10/01/2008, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Original Message > > > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Coleb

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

What commands are needed to build and test the code? I could not find the information on the site. Also, build.xml seems to be out of date, as it refers to junit 3.8.1. On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on > >http://pe

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 4:32 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Original Message > > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > [..] > > > > +1 to this se

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Original Message > From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > [..] > > > +1 to this sentiment. I completely reject the notion of generating > NOTICE.txt. Th

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Original Message From: Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > > +1 to this sentiment. I completely reject the notion of generating NOTICE.txt. That is our responsibility here in commons. > And I reject the attitude to d

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-fileupload 1.2.1 (rc3)

On 10/01/2008, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I forgot to note: The distribution is available on > >http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/dist -1: The NOTICE files in the jars are non-standard. They also refer to Commons-IO which is not part of the jar. The NOTICE f

Re: [exec] How to support the various Logging APIs?!

What I ended up doing these days... I have the most basic logging interface in the package space of my libraries interface Console { void println(String) } And if the application using that library wants to log what's going on *inside* the library I inject a Console implementation bei

Re: [exec] How to support the various Logging APIs?!

Hi folks, Why is it harder to maintain? Because we have to target multiple JDK version starting from 1.3 and you have to write tests for each logging integration you provide out of the box Why? Because using commons-logging is not undisputed and log4j/jdk logging would reduce the number

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 3:43 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > > +1 to this sentiment. I completely reject the notion of generating > > NOTICE.txt. That is our responsibility here in commons. > > > > +1 And I reject the attitude to

Re: [exec] How to support the various Logging APIs?!

On 10/01/2008, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > an interesting question for the newly founded commons-exec community - > the original code from commons-exec comes with a helper class to pump > stdout/stderr of the created process into the Commons Logging library > thereb

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On 10/01/2008, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Original Message > From: Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* > information > > about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should > *never* *neve

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

I attached a new pacth to IO-77. It implements Holger Hoffstättesuggestion to use NIO for file copy - when a java 1.4 runtime is available - and relies on buffers on java 1.3. Nico. 2008/1/9, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme (in module commons-jelly) failed

To whom it may engage... This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html, and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project commons-jelly-tags-jaxme has an issue affecting its community integration. This

[exec] How to support the various Logging APIs?!

Hi folks, an interesting question for the newly founded commons-exec community - the original code from commons-exec comes with a helper class to pump stdout/stderr of the created process into the Commons Logging library thereby introducing a non-optional dependency. I changed the code to us

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Original Message From: Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information > about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* *never* > have information about files in other maven modules, ie data should

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 9:31 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know that the remote-resources plugin is capable of pulling in a copy of > the LICENSE file from a central location. I don't personally think this is a > good idea, and that checking in a copy manually to each project is bett

Re: [all] project.xml name element inconsistency

Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > Hello all: > > I am seeing two types of names in project.xml name elements. For a project > "Foo": > > - Foo > - Commons Foo > > Can we standardize one pattern for all [commons] projects? > > Current examples: > > Codec (SVN) > Commons Pool (SV

[all] project.xml name element inconsistency

Hello all: I am seeing two types of names in project.xml name elements. For a project "Foo": - Foo - Commons Foo Can we standardize one pattern for all [commons] projects? Current examples: Codec (SVN) Commons Pool (SVN) FileUpload (1.2.1 rc3) IO (SVN) Lang (SVN) Over the two, I would pick "

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information > > about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* > > *never* have inf

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

On Jan 10, 2008 9:04 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. What I am saying is that the NOTICE file should have *only* information > about the files in the current maven module. The NOTICE should *never* > *never* have information about files in other maven modules, ie data should

Re: [IO] Planning IO 1.4 release

Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On Jan 10, 2008 8:51 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry to repeat myself again, but I really do not think the > > maven-remote-resources approach is > > even legal. IANAL, but as I understand things, we *must* not use this