On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Nov 20, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> Take a look at the proposal and feel free to edit and add any missing
>> info
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ValidationProposal -- looks good to me. Has
> there been a vote by
On Nov 20, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Take a look at the proposal and feel free to edit and add any missing info
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ValidationProposal -- looks good to me. Has
there been a vote by the Commons community to sponsor?
--kevan
Take a look at the proposal and feel free to edit and add any missing
info
-Donald
Simone Tripodi wrote:
HI guys,
being a volunteer to help you on developing the new Validation
framework, is there any way I can help you on completing the proposal?
Please let me know! Have a nice weekend,
HI guys,
being a volunteer to help you on developing the new Validation
framework, is there any way I can help you on completing the proposal?
Please let me know! Have a nice weekend, best regards
Simone
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> I'm sure we'll get a few more interest
I'm sure we'll get a few more interested committers from Geronimo and
OpenJPA. Was just waiting until we had an initial proposal draft
completed before posting it to those dev lists. I'll go ahead and post
to those lists today and maybe we can target you starting a Commons vote
in the next w
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Apologies for chiming in late.
>
> From a Geronimo/EE 6 perspective, I'm definitely interested in seeing a 303
> implementation at Apache. I'm not likely to have much time for
> implementation. However, if champions or mentors are needed, I'
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> OK, I finished my first rounds of updates.
If we want Apache Commons to be sponsor then we should hold a vote here first.
> Looks like we just need to nail
> down a champion and we can add more mentors once we propose it to the
> incubator.
OK, I finished my first rounds of updates. Looks like we just need to
nail down a champion and we can add more mentors once we propose it to
the incubator
-Donald
Niall Pemberton wrote:
Lets start a proposal on the incubator wiki:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
I've set up a ske
Apologies for chiming in late.
From a Geronimo/EE 6 perspective, I'm definitely interested in seeing a 303
implementation at Apache. I'm not likely to have much time for implementation.
However, if champions or mentors are needed, I'd be willing to help.
On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Donald Wood
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Don
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Ni
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Do
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wr
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 2
+1 on the proposal :)
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
I totally agree with that Donald :), but now its been weeks discussing
the same subject and nothing changed. This is what I am talking about.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Apache is built upon open collaboration within a community.
>
> Here, we have a significant code dona
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it'
Apache is built upon open collaboration within a community.
Here, we have a significant code donation being offered, which would
save us months or years in jump starting a JSR-303 implementation at
Apache. Therefore, I believe the only fair approach is one that allows
the code contributor com
Hi...
IMO, and sorry for saying that, now we've been transformed from
thinking about the project on how to get Roman involved in code
submission. IMO if this has no solution to be taken to get things up
and running fast enough so either Ron accepts that situation, or we
start doing it the way N
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
> Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.
Seems not :(, wdyt should we go the way Niall started ?
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
repurpose it, see VALIDATOR-279.
As far as the API, we already ha
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
repurpos
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
repurp
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
>>> repurpose it, see VALIDATOR-279.
>>>
>>> As far as the API, we already ha
Niall Pemberton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
repurpose it, see VALIDATOR-279.
As far as the API, we already have a clean room copy of the 1.0 GA API
created over in the Apache Geronimo Specs
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
> repurpose it, see VALIDATOR-279.
>
> As far as the API, we already have a clean room copy of the 1.0 GA API
> created over in the Apache Geronimo Specs subproject [1], wi
Hi Niall...
I think we need to know your comment on that as you are the one who
started the thread and the effort related to what we started to
discuss on this thread :).
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>
> The only complication, is that we would
Donald Woods wrote:
>
The only complication, is that we would need to
> offer committership to Roman from Agimatec as soon as the Incubator IP
> clearance is finished, as he would need to be the one to remove the
> existing Agimatec copyright statements. Thoughts?
I am not familiar enough wi
The amount of time to start over seems like a waste, given we have an
existing ASL 2.0 licensed codebase which is 75-80% done and wanting to
come over to the ASF
-Donald
Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi Donald...
If moving the code of Agimatic into ASF going to be problematic why
not
Hi Donald...
If moving the code of Agimatic into ASF going to be problematic why
not to start a clean room implementation as Niall suggested ?
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
> Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
> repurpose it, see VALI
Hi Nail. I'm the one who created that copy of 1.4, so it's fine if we
repurpose it, see VALIDATOR-279.
As far as the API, we already have a clean room copy of the 1.0 GA API
created over in the Apache Geronimo Specs subproject [1], with the other
Java EE spec APIs we ship, so I'd be -1 on cre
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
>
> So I would like to propose the following direction for a Validator2
> based on the Bean Validation Framework(JSR 303) - a project with three
> separate modules composing of:
>
> - The Bean Validation (JSR303) API - no dependencies
> -
+1
--- On Fri, 10/23/09, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
> From: Mohammad Nour El-Din
> Subject: Re: [validator] Direction of validator implementation based on JSR
> 303
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Friday, October 23, 2009, 4:35 AM
> +1
>
> Act
Doesn't Commons Validator currently include JavaScript routines? I
think that's value that shouldn't be thrown away regardless of JSR-303
implementation.
Paul
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi Niall,
> thanks for your reply, that's my
>
> +1
>
> :) I'm not an Apache Com
Hi Niall,
thanks for your reply, that's my
+1
:) I'm not an Apache Committer but I already contributed to Cocoon3
and just submitted my first patch to commons-digester, so I'm quite
familiar to how things work here.
Sure, I'll follow the list and take me in consideration!!
All the best,
Simone
+1
Actually this is even better to start from scratch. I am in Niall.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Simone Tripodi
> wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>> I don't have the rights to express votes but at least please let me
>
> Anyone can vote - it ma
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Simone Tripodi
wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I don't have the rights to express votes but at least please let me
Anyone can vote - it may end up we don't agree - but votes are appreciated.
> say that sounds great, commons-validation has to be the proper home
> for JSR303,
Hi guys,
I don't have the rights to express votes but at least please let me
say that sounds great, commons-validation has to be the proper home
for JSR303, I'd like to contribute in this project since I already
started studying the spec :)
All the best,
Simone
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:58 AM, He
+!
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Niall Pemberton
> wrote:
>> The current trunk in the validator2 sandbox is a copy of the Validator
>> 1.4 code from "commons proper" - but I think we should dump all the
>> existing validator fram
+1
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> The current trunk in the validator2 sandbox is a copy of the Validator
> 1.4 code from "commons proper" - but I think we should dump all the
> existing validator framework code and just retain the "routines"
> package. Trying to maintai
The current trunk in the validator2 sandbox is a copy of the Validator
1.4 code from "commons proper" - but I think we should dump all the
existing validator framework code and just retain the "routines"
package. Trying to maintain any sort of compatibility with the
existing validator framework wou
43 matches
Mail list logo
