sebb wrote:
Given that this process has stalled
It has indeed stalled. Nevertheless, it was an interesting
discussion. The openness demonstrated by this group is unusual as it
is refreshing. It seems that ultimately the status quo (inaction) won
the day which is not entirely surprising in the
On 22/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
> >
> > So the alternative to releasing the version to the main maven repo is
> > to setup a one-off repo just containing this 0.0-EMPTY version of
> > logging and users who want to depend on it adding that repo to their
> > pom along
Niall Pemberton wrote:
So the alternative to releasing the version to the main maven repo is
to setup a one-off repo just containing this 0.0-EMPTY version of
logging and users who want to depend on it adding that repo to their
pom along with the 0.0-EMPTY dependency. Thats just a few extra lin
Having skimmed the contents of this thread, this is one release I
don't intend to support.
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
>
> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Hi Ceki,
>>
>> Ceki Gulcu wrote at Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 22:00:
>>
>>> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Yes I'm aware of that. My concern is for those people who don't know
about that. What will happen if they declare
commons-logging:common
--- On Wed, 5/20/09, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> From: Niall Pemberton
> Subject: Re: commons-logging version 0.0.0-EMPTY
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Wednesday, May 20, 2009, 7:52 PM
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ceki
> Gulcu
> wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
>
> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>>> Forgive me for asking, but were you aware of the above. And if you
>>> were, would you care to explain a scenario in mind which is troubling
>>> you?
>>
>> First: The solution is perfect for a normal user i.e. some
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Ceki,
Ceki Gulcu wrote at Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 22:00:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Yes I'm aware of that. My concern is for those people who don't know
about that. What will happen if they declare
commons-logging:commons-logging without a version in their POM? Or
declare
Hi Ceki,
Ceki Gulcu wrote at Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 22:00:
> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>
>> Yes I'm aware of that. My concern is for those people who don't know
>> about that. What will happen if they declare
>> commons-logging:commons-logging without a version in their POM? Or
>> declare the spec
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Yes I'm aware of that. My concern is for those people who don't know
about that. What will happen if they declare
commons-logging:commons-logging without a version in their POM? Or
declare the special token LATEST as a version for commons-logging? Will
they get 1.1.1 or 0.
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
>
> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I have created an empty Maven project with groupId "commons-logging",
>>> artifactId "commons-logging" and version 0.0.0-EMPTY. There is very
>>> little content (around 500 bytes) in the whole project. This
Hi Ceki,
Ceki Gulcu wrote at Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 14:46:
> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Mario Ivankovits
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nice would be, as opposite to the , to have a global
>>> , no?
>>>
>>> That way, problems like this are sorted out once and for all.
>>>
>>
--- On Tue, 5/19/09, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> From: Jochen Wiedmann
> Subject: Re: commons-logging version 0.0.0-EMPTY
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 9:40 AM
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ceki
> Gulcu
> wrote:
>
>
I follow you on the phyliosphical point of view, but sory we expect this
feature on maven for some years and don't see a solution before many months
(years ?)
Commons-logging historical succes don't make it reallu an "isolated" project
2009/5/19 Jochen Wiedmann
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM,
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Jochen, you do realize that global exclusions would suffer from the same
> problems as you described in the A B C scenario. Here is a slightly modified
> version of your scenario.
May be, but I'd rather have the overall Maven community work on
> >> Nice would be, as opposite to the , to have a global
> >> , no?
> >>
> >> That way, problems like this are sorted out once and for all.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> Jochen, you do realize that global exclusions would suffer from the same
> problems as you described in the A B C scenario.
The same p
>
> nicolas de loof wrote:
>
>> A library autor that MAY use cl-0.0 to remove commons-logging from
>> dependency tree and use SLF4J will anyway have a dependency on
>> cl-over-sfl4j
>> that solves the ClassNotFoundException
>>
>
> Good point but what if the end-user wanted to use commons-logging pr
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Mario Ivankovits wrote:
Nice would be, as opposite to the , to have a global ,
no?
That way, problems like this are sorted out once and for all.
+1
Jochen, you do realize that global exclusions would suffer from the same
problem
nd for all.
>
>
> Or do I miss something?
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:c...@qos.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:03 PM
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: commons-logging version 0.0.0-EMPTY
>
>
&g
nicolas de loof wrote:
A library autor that MAY use cl-0.0 to remove commons-logging from
dependency tree and use SLF4J will anyway have a dependency on cl-over-sfl4j
that solves the ClassNotFoundException
Good point but what if the end-user wanted to use commons-logging proper and not
SLF4J?
Hi Mario,
Global exclusions in Maven would provide a solution with essentially
the same problems and dangers as with 0.0-EMPTY. Anyway, global exclusions have
been requested in the past but afaik nothing came of it. Hence,
0.0-EMPTY.
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
Hmmm
Couldn't we ask the maven
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> Nice would be, as opposite to the , to have a global
> , no?
>
> That way, problems like this are sorted out once and for all.
>
>
> Or do I miss something?
+1
--
Don't trust a government that doesn't trust you.
ite to the , to have a global ,
no?
That way, problems like this are sorted out once and for all.
Or do I miss something?
Ciao,
Mario
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gulcu [mailto:c...@qos.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:03 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: commons-logging vers
A library autor that MAY use cl-0.0 to remove commons-logging from
dependency tree and use SLF4J will anyway have a dependency on cl-over-sfl4j
that solves the ClassNotFoundException
A library that uses slf4j would anyway only declare slf4japi as dependency
and has no reason to force exclusion of c
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Forgive me for asking, but were you aware of the above. And if you
were, would you care to explain a scenario in mind which is troubling
you?
First: The solution is perfect for a normal user i.e. somebody building an
application, not a library/framework. The problem star
I'd would agree with you if the proposal was to deploy a "99" version.
The 0.0 version is safer whatever dependency strategy you choose : 0.0 will
be considered < to any other version by any comparator-based version
strategy. Maven "nearest" strategy (that is not the simple one to debug)
will not
Hi Ceki,
Ceki Gulcu wrote at Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 12:18:
>
>
> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I have created an empty Maven project with groupId "commons-logging",
>>> artifactId "commons-logging" and version 0.0.0-EMPTY. There is very
>>> little content (a
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Forgive me for asking, but were you aware of the above. And if you
> were, would you care to explain a scenario in mind which is troubling
> you?
Forgive me for asking, Ceki, but are you aware of the fact, how
frequently dependency resolution
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hello all,
I have created an empty Maven project with groupId "commons-logging",
artifactId "commons-logging" and version 0.0.0-EMPTY. There is very
little content (around 500 bytes) in the whole project. This is to be
expected as the original aim was
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On May 18, 2009, at 10:00 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Thank you for this suggestion. Unfortunately, adding references to
>>> parent
>>> pom, and
>>> creates a
>>> manifest file which includes OSGi directives, whi
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have created an empty Maven project with groupId "commons-logging",
> artifactId "commons-logging" and version 0.0.0-EMPTY. There is very
> little content (around 500 bytes) in the whole project. This is to be
> expected as the original aim was to produce an em
The relevant element should have been inserted within element and not
. Issue solved now. Thank you for your help.
Ceki Gulcu wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
sebb wrote:
I just tried, and using the "default" tags works OK for me.
What "default" tags have you
sebb wrote:
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
sebb wrote:
I just tried, and using the "default" tags works OK for me.
What "default" tags have you tried exactly?
The manifest ones I mentioned:
true
true
Thank you for the pro
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
>
> sebb wrote:
>
>
> > I just tried, and using the "default" tags works OK for me.
> >
>
> What "default" tags have you tried exactly?
The manifest ones I mentioned:
true
true
> --
> Ceki Gülcü
> L
Thanks, Matt and Ceki. It's all clear now.
Craig
On May 18, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Just for my information, why is it not desirable to package this as
an OSGi compliant jar?
Because we would not want an empty bundle containing no classes to
usurp the pl
sebb wrote:
I just tried, and using the "default" tags works OK for me.
What "default" tags have you tried exactly?
--
Ceki Gülcü
Logback: The reliable, generic, fast and flexible logging framework for Java.
http://logback.qos.ch
Craig L Russell wrote:
Just for my information, why is it not desirable to package this as an
OSGi compliant jar?
Because we would not want an empty bundle containing no classes to
usurp the place of the real commons-logging OSGi bundle.
Also, why is the maven group id commons-logging and no
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, Craig L Russell wrote:
> From: Craig L Russell
> Subject: Re: commons-logging version 0.0.0-EMPTY
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 12:18 PM
> Hi,
>
> On May 18, 2009, at 10:00 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
Hi,
On May 18, 2009, at 10:00 AM, sebb wrote:
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for this suggestion. Unfortunately, adding references to
parent
pom, and
creates a
manifest file which includes OSGi directives, which is really not
desirable.
These can be suppressed.
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for this suggestion. Unfortunately, adding references to parent
> pom, and
> creates a
> manifest file which includes OSGi directives, which is really not desirable.
These can be suppressed.
However, surely referencing the "apache" po
Hello,
Thank you for this suggestion. Unfortunately, adding references to parent pom,
and creates a
manifest file which includes OSGi directives, which is really not desirable.
I changed the contents of the name element to "Commons Logging".
sebb wrote:
Thanks, although IMO it would hav
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
>
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > sebb wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > It would be useful if the Manifest included the following details:
> > > >
> > > > Implementation-Title: commons-logging
> > > > Implementation-Vendor: The A
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> From: Ceki Gulcu
> Subject: Re: commons-logging version 0.0.0-EMPTY
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 9:14 AM
>
>
> Matt Benson wrote:
>
> >>> For the actual "sou
sebb wrote:
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
sebb wrote:
It would be useful if the Manifest included the following details:
Implementation-Title: commons-logging
Implementation-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation
Implementation-Vendor-Id: org.apache
Implementation-Version: 0.0.0-EMPTY
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
>
>
> sebb wrote:
>
> >
> > It would be useful if the Manifest included the following details:
> >
> > Implementation-Title: commons-logging
> > Implementation-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation
> > Implementation-Vendor-Id: org.apache
> > Implementation-Versi
sebb wrote:
It would be useful if the Manifest included the following details:
Implementation-Title: commons-logging
Implementation-Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation
Implementation-Vendor-Id: org.apache
Implementation-Version: 0.0.0-EMPTY
Specification-Title: commons-logging
Specificatio
Matt Benson wrote:
For the actual "source code", see
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/commons/sandbox/logging_empty/trunk/
Just to point out: the final location of this "code" should AIUI BE a branch under logging/branches... the current structure isn't harming anything at the moment, however
nicolas de loof wrote:
The POM should include SCM path, url to commons-logging site and licensing
metadata
Done. Note that I've used the url for for svn in commons/proper/trunk.
Maybe you could also include the blog extract as description / comment. The
description explains the jar is empty
--- On Mon, 5/18/09, nicolas de loof wrote:
> From: nicolas de loof
> Subject: Re: commons-logging version 0.0.0-EMPTY
> To: "Commons Developers List"
> Date: Monday, May 18, 2009, 8:39 AM
> The POM should include SCM path, url
> to commons-logging site and lic
On 18/05/2009, Ceki Gulcu wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have created an empty Maven project with groupId "commons-logging",
> artifactId "commons-logging" and version 0.0.0-EMPTY. There is very
> little content (around 500 bytes) in the whole project. This is to be
> expected as the original aim w
The POM should include SCM path, url to commons-logging site and licensing
metadata
Maybe you could also include the blog extract as description / comment. The
description explains the jar is empty but not why it is there
2009/5/18 Ceki Gulcu
> Hello all,
>
> I have created an empty Maven proje
Hello all,
I have created an empty Maven project with groupId "commons-logging",
artifactId "commons-logging" and version 0.0.0-EMPTY. There is very
little content (around 500 bytes) in the whole project. This is to be
expected as the original aim was to produce an empty jar file.
For the actual
52 matches
Mail list logo
