Activity of Jakarta subprojects

Thought I'd summarize the current activity of the subprojects:


* Cactus: No code commits since February 2009. Weak activity between
2006 and 2009.

I think Cactus should head to the Attic.

* BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.

A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
chance of activity.

* JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.

This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.

Hen

Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On 23 July 2011 19:23, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Thought I'd summarize the current activity of the subprojects:
>
>
> * Cactus: No code commits since February 2009. Weak activity between
> 2006 and 2009.
>
> I think Cactus should head to the Attic.

+1

> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>
> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
> chance of activity.

Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.

> * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.
>
> This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
> present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
> hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.

Or perhaps join HttpComonents?
I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for
HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols).

> Hen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

....

>
> > * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.
> >
> > This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
> > present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
> > hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.
>
> Or perhaps join HttpComonents?
> I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for
> HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols).
>

The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between
JMeter and HttpComponents.

Oleg

Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> > * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.
>> >
>> > This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
>> > present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
>> > hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.
>>
>> Or perhaps join HttpComonents?
>> I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for
>> HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols).
>>
>
> The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between
> JMeter and HttpComponents.

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. +1.

Hen

Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Thought I'd summarize the current activity of the subprojects:
>


Thanks for getting this thread going Hen, I had thoughts of starting a
similar thread this weekend, given we're almost done with the BCEL and
JCS moves.

-Rahul


>
> * Cactus: No code commits since February 2009. Weak activity between
> 2006 and 2009.
>
> I think Cactus should head to the Attic.
>
> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>
> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
> chance of activity.
>
> * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.
>
> This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
> present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
> hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.
>
> Hen
>

Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> ...
>
>>
>> > * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.
>> >
>> > This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
>> > present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
>> > hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.
>>
>> Or perhaps join HttpComonents?
>> I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for
>> HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols).
>>
>
> The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between
> JMeter and HttpComponents.
>


Cool, so next step -- either of you (sebb/olegk) want to check with
the HttpComponents PMC if there is consensus on that?

-Rahul


> Oleg
>
>

Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote:
>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>>
>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
>> chance of activity.
>>
> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.
>
Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few
bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating
a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223
environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the
case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines
exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my
table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I
would like to apply them to the official 2.x.

---rony

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
wrote:
>
> On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote:
>>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>>>
>>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
>>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
>>> chance of activity.
>>>
>> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
>> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
>> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.
>>
> Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few
> bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating
> a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223
> environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the
> case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines
> exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my
> table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I
> would like to apply them to the official 2.x.

Fair enough request.

Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we:

* Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF.
* Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons?
* Move to the Attic.

---

How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit
was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is
to say "Game Over". If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out
with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at
first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project.

Hen

Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

Forwarding below to dev@ and private@ for increased awareness. Replies
to original thread on general@ please.

-Rahul


On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Thought I'd summarize the current activity of the subprojects:
>
>
> * Cactus: No code commits since February 2009. Weak activity between
> 2006 and 2009.
>
> I think Cactus should head to the Attic.
>
> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>
> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
> chance of activity.
>
> * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.
>
> This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
> present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
> hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.
>
> Hen
>

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Henri Yandell
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
> wrote:
>>
>> On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote:
>>>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>>>>
>>>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
>>>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
>>>> chance of activity.
>>>>
>>> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
>>> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
>>> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.
>>>
>> Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few
>> bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating
>> a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223
>> environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the
>> case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines
>> exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my
>> table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I
>> would like to apply them to the official 2.x.
>
> Fair enough request.
>
> Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we:
>
> * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF.
> * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons?
> * Move to the Attic.
>


I don't think Jakarta should/will exist for much longer, so first
bullet isn't an option. Or, put differently, if that is the preferred
option, then we should rather get a BSF TLP.

-Rahul


> ---
>
> How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit
> was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is
> to say "Game Over". If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out
> with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at
> first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project.
>
> Hen
>

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
> wrote:
>
>> On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote:
>>
>>>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>>>>
>>>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
>>>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
>>>> chance of activity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
>>> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
>>> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.
>>>
>>>
>> Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few
>> bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating
>> a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223
>> environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the
>> case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines
>> exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my
>> table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I
>> would like to apply them to the official 2.x.
>>
> Fair enough request.
>
> Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we:
>
> * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF.
> * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons?
> * Move to the Attic.
>
> ---
>
> How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit
> was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is
> to say "Game Over". If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out
> with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at
> first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project.
>
Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an
updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then
be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I
can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs
(however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for
which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java
applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily
findable and downloadable.

---

Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily
overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alife as it implements the JSR-223 specs
(javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java
1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with
scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated
into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it
is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with
Java 1.6 in that area as well).

---rony

Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> > * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.
>>> >
>>> > This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
>>> > present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
>>> > hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.
>>>
>>> Or perhaps join HttpComonents?
>>> I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for
>>> HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols).
>>>
>>
>> The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between
>> JMeter and HttpComponents.
>>
>
> Cool, so next step -- either of you (sebb/olegk) want to check with
> the HttpComponents PMC if there is consensus on that?
>


Don't see anything on above in hc archives, unless I missed it. Want
me to broach the topic ;-?

-Rahul


> -Rahul
>
>
>> Oleg
>>
>>
>

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
wrote:
>
> On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>>>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>>>>>
>>>>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
>>>>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
>>>>> chance of activity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
>>>> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
>>>> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few
>>> bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating
>>> a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223
>>> environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the
>>> case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines
>>> exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my
>>> table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I
>>> would like to apply them to the official 2.x.
>>>
>> Fair enough request.
>>
>> Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we:
>>
>> * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF.
>> * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons?
>> * Move to the Attic.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit
>> was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is
>> to say "Game Over". If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out
>> with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at
>> first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project.
>>
> Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an
> updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then
> be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I
> can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs
> (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for
> which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java
> applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily
> findable and downloadable.
>
> ---
>
> Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily
> overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs

Is it alive though?

No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building,
but no answer.
3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff,
especially if there is a plan for a 3.2.

> (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java
> 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with
> scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated
> into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it
> is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with
> Java 1.6 in that area as well).

Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more
likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never
know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone
started committing a few patches in July).

I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and
Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC.

Hen

Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 20:50 -0400, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > * JMeter: Lots of activity. New committer in 2010.
> >>> >
> >>> > This should go TLP. There are two obvious members of a JMeter PMC
> >>> > present (sebb and milamber). Reality is that Jakarta=JMeter now, so
> >>> > hopefully there are other interested parties who simply aren't active.
> >>>
> >>> Or perhaps join HttpComonents?
> >>> I think the charter allows for this, and the main use of JMeter is for
> >>> HTTP testing (though of course it encompasses many other protocols).
> >>>
> >>
> >> The charter can be amended if needed. There is a lot of overlap between
> >> JMeter and HttpComponents.
> >>
> >
> > Cool, so next step -- either of you (sebb/olegk) want to check with
> > the HttpComponents PMC if there is consensus on that?
> >
>
>
> Don't see anything on above in hc archives, unless I missed it. Want
> me to broach the topic ;-?
>
> -Rahul
>
>

Rahul

Taking JMeter to HC should be the latest resort, only if JMeter is
unable to gather enough support to become a TLP of its own.

A possibility of JMeter going TLP should be discussed first, in my
opinion.

Oleg

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On 6 August 2011 08:40, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
> wrote:
>>
>> On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
>>>>>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
>>>>>> chance of activity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
>>>>> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
>>>>> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few
>>>> bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating
>>>> a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223
>>>> environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the
>>>> case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines
>>>> exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my
>>>> table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I
>>>> would like to apply them to the official 2.x.
>>>>
>>> Fair enough request.
>>>
>>> Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we:
>>>
>>> * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF.
>>> * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons?
>>> * Move to the Attic.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit
>>> was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is
>>> to say "Game Over". If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out
>>> with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at
>>> first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project.
>>>
>> Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an
>> updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then
>> be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I
>> can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs
>> (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for
>> which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java
>> applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily
>> findable and downloadable.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily
>> overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs
>
> Is it alive though?
>
> No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building,
> but no answer.
> 3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff,
> especially if there is a plan for a 3.2.
>
>> (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java
>> 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with
>> scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated
>> into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it
>> is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with
>> Java 1.6 in that area as well).
>
> Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more
> likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never
> know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone
> started committing a few patches in July).
>
> I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and
> Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC.

Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to
me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it.

> Hen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On 06.08.2011 18:41, sebb wrote:
> On 6 August 2011 08:40, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
>>>>>>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
>>>>>>> chance of activity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
>>>>>> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
>>>>>> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few
>>>>> bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating
>>>>> a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223
>>>>> environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the
>>>>> case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines
>>>>> exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my
>>>>> table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I
>>>>> would like to apply them to the official 2.x.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Fair enough request.
>>>>
>>>> Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we:
>>>>
>>>> * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF.
>>>> * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons?
>>>> * Move to the Attic.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit
>>>> was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is
>>>> to say "Game Over". If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out
>>>> with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at
>>>> first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an
>>> updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then
>>> be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I
>>> can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs
>>> (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for
>>> which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java
>>> applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily
>>> findable and downloadable.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily
>>> overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs
>>>
>> Is it alive though?
>>
>> No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building,
>> but no answer.
>> 3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff,
>> especially if there is a plan for a 3.2.
>>
>>
>>> (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java
>>> 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with
>>> scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated
>>> into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it
>>> is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with
>>> Java 1.6 in that area as well).
>>>
>> Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more
>> likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never
>> know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone
>> started committing a few patches in July).
>>
>> I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and
>> Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC.
>>
> Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to
> me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it.
>
+1

---rony

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Rony G. Flatscher
wrote:
>
>
> On 06.08.2011 18:41, sebb wrote:
>> On 6 August 2011 08:40, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24.07.2011 19:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23.07.2011 20:47, sebb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * BSF: Slow activity; only coder in last two years is Sebb.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A difficult one to decide on. I think we should challenge on it going
>>>>>>>> to the Attic, and if not send it to Commons where it will have more
>>>>>>>> chance of activity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that JSR-223 is part of Java 1.6 there is less need for BSF.
>>>>>>> There are no bugs oustanding against BSF 3.x.
>>>>>>> Not sure it is worth fixing any of the 2.x bugs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please wait a little bit. It has been a long time intent to fix the few
>>>>>> bugs in 2.x and add the enhancements in JIRA to it. Maybe also creating
>>>>>> a JSR-223 bridge to allow BSF 2.x engines to be used in JSR-223
>>>>>> environments (not sure whether this is worthwhile, but it may be the
>>>>>> case that there are 2.x engines for which no JSR-223 engines
>>>>>> exist).(Just have not been able to push this more to the front of my
>>>>>> table; have a 2.x engine in use that has the bugfixes incorporated and I
>>>>>> would like to apply them to the official 2.x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough request.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still leaves the question of what to do with BSF. Do we:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Leave all of Jakarta open just for BSF.
>>>>> * Move BSF elsewhere. Where? Commons?
>>>>> * Move to the Attic.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> How realistic are we talking on the changes? Your last BSF code commit
>>>>> was in 2007. I know I'm being pushy - but I also know how hard it is
>>>>> to say "Game Over". If we move it to the Attic, it can always move out
>>>>> with the only pain being that you have to do the work locally at
>>>>> first, or fork into a Lab/Commons Sandbox/Incubator project.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an
>>>> updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then
>>>> be put into the attic. Ideally a POM for it would be great, however I
>>>> can not promise as I have no working knowledge of defining Maven POMs
>>>> (however I can read them ;) ). This way older scripting engines for
>>>> which no JSR-223 bindings exist can still be deployed by Java
>>>> applications. It would be important to make the attic version easily
>>>> findable and downloadable.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Also, I would like to stress the following point, which may be easily
>>>> overseen: BSF 3.x needs to stay alive as it implements the JSR-223 specs
>>>>
>>> Is it alive though?
>>>
>>> No user email in 2010. One user email in 2011 having trouble building,
>>> but no answer.
>>> 3.1 released by Sebb in 2010. 3.0 in 2009. Which is good stuff,
>>> especially if there is a plan for a 3.2.
>>>
>>>
>>>> (javax.script) that Sun introduced with Java 1.6. BSF 3.x runs on Java
>>>> 1.4 and up and such allows creation and deployment of applications with
>>>> scripts starting from Java 1.4. Not sure whether it got incorporated
>>>> into Harmony, but that would be probably a proper place to live on (it
>>>> is the javax.script implementation Harmony needs to be compatible with
>>>> Java 1.6 in that area as well).
>>>>
>>> Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more
>>> likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never
>>> know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone
>>> started committing a few patches in July).
>>>
>>> I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and
>>> Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC.
>>>
>> Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to
>> me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it.
>>
> +1

Could one of you propose that to Commons?

Hen

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more
>>>> likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never
>>>> know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone
>>>> started committing a few patches in July).
>>>>
>>>> I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and
>>>> Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to
>>> me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it.
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
> Could one of you propose that to Commons?
>
Dear Sebb, would you be so kind (I think you have been active in Commons
already, whereas I have not)?

---rony

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On 7 August 2011 18:11, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
> Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more
>>>>> likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never
>>>>> know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone
>>>>> started committing a few patches in July).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and
>>>>> Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to
>>>> me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>> Could one of you propose that to Commons?
>>
> Dear Sebb, would you be so kind (I think you have been active in Commons
> already, whereas I have not)?

Vote is currently underway.

> ---rony
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On 14.08.2011 21:21, sebb wrote:
> On 7 August 2011 18:11, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
>
>> Looking at activity since the turn of the year, I think it's more
>>
>>>>>> likely that Harmony would be heading to the Attic someday. You never
>>>>>> know though - needs to be given time to see if things recover (someone
>>>>>> started committing a few patches in July).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm in favour of a BSF TLP. Assuming yourself, Anthony Elder and
>>>>>> Sebastian Bazley are still interested and willing to form the new PMC.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure I see the point of creating a new PMC just for BSF. Seems to
>>>>> me it would fit quite well in Commons, if Commons would accept it.
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>> Could one of you propose that to Commons?
>>>
>> Dear Sebb, would you be so kind (I think you have been active in Commons
>> already, whereas I have not)?
>>
> Vote is currently underway.
>
Great, thank you very much, Sebb!

---rony

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

.... cut ...
> Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an
> updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then
> be put into the attic.

.... cut ...

Another project (a language binding for D-Bus) took too much time, such
that I was not able to turn to BSF 2.4 this month. As I will be off for
ten days I just wanted to assert that I will turn to BSF 2.4 upon return
and work steadily in smaller units to incorporate the changes throughout
September (the committing in commons works, I changed the version number
to BSF 2.5 yesterday to indicate that there is activity :) ).

---rony

P.S.: Was not sure where to post this, so I turned to this list. What
would be the correct list for BSF related mails in the future?

Re: Ad BSF 2.x (Re: Activity of Jakarta subprojects

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Rony G. Flatscher
wrote:
> ... cut ...
>> Well, I would like to incorporate the changes in August such that an
>> updated (bug-fixed, and the enhancements incorportated) BSF 2.x can then
>> be put into the attic.
>
> ... cut ...
>
> Another project (a language binding for D-Bus) took too much time, such
> that I was not able to turn to BSF 2.4 this month. As I will be off for
> ten days I just wanted to assert that I will turn to BSF 2.4 upon return
> and work steadily in smaller units to incorporate the changes throughout
> September (the committing in commons works, I changed the version number
> to BSF 2.5 yesterday to indicate that there is activity :) ).
>
> ---rony
>
> P.S.: Was not sure where to post this, so I turned to this list. What
> would be the correct list for BSF related mails in the future?

Sorry, missed this.

Mailing lists for BSF are now:

dev@commons.apache.org
user@commons.apache.org

See the following page on Lang:

http://commons.apache.org/lang/mail-lists.html

Hen