Le 16/08/2011 22:27, Oliver Heger a écrit :
Aren't we free to decide how to represent data structures in a
configuration? I mean, the dot keys used by XMLConfiguration is also
just a convention. We could transform a plist file to a XML-friendly
structure and store it in a hierarchical configurat
http://wiki.apache.org/commons/CreatingReleases for most of the information
as I am using the maven release plugin. But I'm also referring to
http://commons.apache.org/releases/index.html to try to make sure nothing is
missed. This process has been a bit painful for me as most commons projects
aren
Am 16.08.2011 10:40, schrieb Ralph Goers:
On Aug 15, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
I would release 1.7 without vfs 2.0, we can still release 1.8 later when
vfs is ready.
Probably a question of time. If the vfs 2.0 release is a matter of some days or
weeks, this is no problem. The r
Am 16.08.2011 10:06, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
Le 15/08/2011 21:39, Oliver Heger a écrit :
To be honest, I think the branch is a mess.
Maybe [configuration] should follow the road other components have gone
before: make the APIs ready for Java 5+, but do only limited
refactoring. Ideally, this c
On Aug 15, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Oliver Heger wrote:
>> I would release 1.7 without vfs 2.0, we can still release 1.8 later when
>> vfs is ready.
>
> Probably a question of time. If the vfs 2.0 release is a matter of some days
> or weeks, this is no problem. The release preparations for [configura
On Aug 16, 2011, at 1:16 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 15/08/2011 23:02, Ralph Goers a écrit :
>> I don't know. I think it really needs a refactoring. We always said that
>> all configurations should be based on HierarchicalConfiguration but that
>> still hasn't happened. Attribute splittin
Le 15/08/2011 23:02, Ralph Goers a écrit :
I don't know. I think it really needs a refactoring. We always said that all
configurations should be based on HierarchicalConfiguration but that still
hasn't happened. Attribute splitting and delimiter parsing have been a pain.
I think it would be
Le 15/08/2011 21:39, Oliver Heger a écrit :
To be honest, I think the branch is a mess.
Maybe [configuration] should follow the road other components have gone
before: make the APIs ready for Java 5+, but do only limited
refactoring. Ideally, this could even be done in a binary compatible
way.
That's OK. At least getting agreement on tackling the interfaces first gives
us somewhere to start. Then we can debate if or where generics, etc. should be
used.
The reason I still prefer to base on the Hierarchical is that the current way
of hooking in the File configuration support is just u
Am 15.08.2011 23:02, schrieb Ralph Goers:
I don't know. I think it really needs a refactoring. We always said that all
configurations should be based on HierarchicalConfiguration but that still
hasn't happened. Attribute splitting and delimiter parsing have been a pain.
I think it would be
I don't know. I think it really needs a refactoring. We always said that all
configurations should be based on HierarchicalConfiguration but that still
hasn't happened. Attribute splitting and delimiter parsing have been a pain.
I think it would be great to start with clean interfaces and the
Am 14.08.2011 23:28, schrieb Emmanuel Bourg:
Le 13/08/2011 20:53, Oliver Heger a écrit :
Hi,
as you may have noticed, I have started some work in order to prepare a
release (version 1.7) of [configuration]. I assume this will be the last
release compatible with Java 1.4.
So the release after
On Aug 14, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 13/08/2011 20:53, Oliver Heger a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> as you may have noticed, I have started some work in order to prepare a
>> release (version 1.7) of [configuration]. I assume this will be the last
>> release compatible with Java 1.4.
>
Le 13/08/2011 20:53, Oliver Heger a écrit :
Hi,
as you may have noticed, I have started some work in order to prepare a
release (version 1.7) of [configuration]. I assume this will be the last
release compatible with Java 1.4.
So the release after 1.7 would be the code on the 2.0 branch ?
I
Probably because the RC tag was not copied following the release vote.
On 13 August 2011 22:30, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Why is there no tag in svn for commons-parent version 21?
>
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> as you may have noticed, I have started some work in
Why is there no tag in svn for commons-parent version 21?
On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as you may have noticed, I have started some work in order to prepare a
> release (version 1.7) of [configuration]. I assume this will be the last
> release compatible with Jav
I was waiting for v 2.2 of the release plugin. It was released several weeks
ago.
As it happens I tried to do the release of vfs again last night and it failed
due to changes in the commons parent pom or one of its parents. It doesn't
appear to support multi module projects as the maven-bundl
Hi,
as you may have noticed, I have started some work in order to prepare a
release (version 1.7) of [configuration]. I assume this will be the last
release compatible with Java 1.4.
I plan to have a look at the current Jira issues, but I hope there are
no major issues open which have to be
18 matches
Mail list logo
