It makes perfect sense if you want multiple versions of DBCP on the
classpath. We had that discussion with Lang 3 as well.
Paul
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi Phil,
> I'm sure the build will be broken at least at the beginning, this
> morning I migrated the commons-
Hi Phil,
I'm sure the build will be broken at least at the beginning, this
morning I migrated the commons-pool pom metadata and package.
Please let me know if I can be helpful on dbcp too, thanks in advance.
Have a nice day,
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
O
On 10/17/10 9:57 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Phil,
Phil Steitz wrote:
I just created a dbcp 1.4 legacy branch, so we can now start work
toward dbcp 2.0 in trunk. Pool is already off to the races. As we
have discussed, I would like to start exploring bringing in the
Tomcat jdbc-pool code, spl
Hi Phil,
Phil Steitz wrote:
> I just created a dbcp 1.4 legacy branch, so we can now start work
> toward dbcp 2.0 in trunk. Pool is already off to the races. As we
> have discussed, I would like to start exploring bringing in the
> Tomcat jdbc-pool code, split somehow between [pool] and [dbcp].
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> If you are changing the groupId, there's no point in changing the artifactId.
>
It's like I'm reliving the same day over and over again, like the
movie Groundhog Day. Am I the only one noticing the fact that we have
to rehash this discussi
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Oh I've been reading :-) I participated in the Lang 3 decision and we
> decided (1) new package name (2) new groupId (3) same artifactId.
>
Check out:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/lang/trunk/pom.xml
The artifactId is com
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:53 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Oh I've been reading :-) I participated in the Lang 3 decision and we
> decided (1) new package name (2) new groupId (3) same artifactId.
>
> Why do you think you need to change the artifactId? Look below and
> tell me what you don't like ab
Oh I've been reading :-) I participated in the Lang 3 decision and we
decided (1) new package name (2) new groupId (3) same artifactId.
Why do you think you need to change the artifactId? Look below and
tell me what you don't like about this progression.
commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.4
org.apache.c
On 10/16/10 11:02 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
If you are changing the groupId, there's no point in changing the artifactId.
See related discussion on [pool]. While we can avoid changing the
artifactId for 2.0 since the groupId change creates the necessary
separation of artifacts, we will need t
> -Original Message-
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil.ste...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 19:39
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: [dbcp] 2.0 prep
>
> I just created a dbcp 1.4 legacy branch, so we can now start work
> toward dbcp 2.0 in tru
If you are changing the groupId, there's no point in changing the artifactId.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> I just created a dbcp 1.4 legacy branch, so we can now start work toward
> dbcp 2.0 in trunk. Pool is already off to the races. As we have discussed,
> I would lik
I just created a dbcp 1.4 legacy branch, so we can now start work
toward dbcp 2.0 in trunk. Pool is already off to the races. As we
have discussed, I would like to start exploring bringing in the
Tomcat jdbc-pool code, split somehow between [pool] and [dbcp].
To get [dbcp] moving, I would li
12 matches
Mail list logo
