2013/1/15 Thomas Neidhart
> On 01/15/2013 07:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> > On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> > Hi Thomas
> >
> > A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
> > same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get ri
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
> aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
>
> * update to Java 5
+1, because it also means that we can simplify the code using the stuff from
the c
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Thomas Neidhart
wrote:
>> I'm -1 on this change. I don't see any reason to do it. We don't need
>> features from a more recent Java version in commons-logging. As others
>> have said: most users of commons-logging are old and older apps.
>
> In general I am fine wi
On 01/15/2013 07:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Thomas
>
> A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
> same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get rid of the
> old Ant build if we want to.
I
Java 5 or 6 is fine with me as a new req. This is a new version. No one is
forced to upgrade. If a volunteer wants to do the work, that's fine with me.
Gary
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On 2013-01-15 19:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM, D
On 2013-01-15 19:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
>> On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>
>> Hi Thomas
>>
>> A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
>> same output as the Ant build. The should mean
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Thomas
>
> A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
> same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get rid of the
> old Ant build if we w
On 2013-01-15 09:56, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Basically I am +1 on mov
On 2013-01-12 15:03, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Thomas
A while back I made changes to the Maven build so that it produces the
same output as the Ant build. The should mean that we can get rid of the
old Ant build if we want to.
One thing that I'd like to do is to restructure the source code
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>>
Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see
use
On 12/01/2013 19:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>
>>> Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see
>>> use for old and older applications.
>>> That said, I just check
Or log4j 2 for that matter?
Gary
On Jan 12, 2013, at 14:29, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>>
>>> Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see
>>> use for old and olde
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
>> Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see
>> use for old and older applications.
>> That said, I just checked and saw tomcat is still using commons-logging:
>> ht
On 12/01/2013 17:36, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Basically I am +1 on moving to newer JDKs. But in this case I just see
> use for old and older applications.
> That said, I just checked and saw tomcat is still using commons-logging:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/build.xml
>
> Ma
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Thomas Neidhart
wrote:
> On 01/12/2013 05:37 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Neidhart
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
>>> aim for a 1.2 release in the coming
On 01/12/2013 05:37 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Neidhart
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
>> aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
>>
>> * update to Java 5
>>
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Neidhart
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
> aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
>
> * update to Java 5
> * comply to default maven structure
> * update to Junit 4
>
On 01/12/2013 03:34 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Sounds good to me.
>
> If Java 6 helps in any way, I would be OK with using it.
Well, I wanted to be conservative, but Java 6 is also fine for me if
nobody objects.
Thomas
-
To unsu
Sounds good to me.
If Java 6 helps in any way, I would be OK with using it.
Gary
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
> aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
>
> * updat
Hi,
I would like to do a similar cleanup as for email also for logging and
aim for a 1.2 release in the coming weeks. The things I have in mind:
* update to Java 5
* comply to default maven structure
* update to Junit 4
* fix the open issues wrt thread safety
* replace WeakHashtable with a W
20 matches
Mail list logo
