>From a user standpoint, moving the slide client to
commons does make
sense. As a library user and from an application developer
you would
either be:
1) working on a content storage, at which point working with
Slide
Server.
2) working on accessing internal or external WebDAV
repositories, at
which point only interested in the webdav-client.
2a) This also has a double-benefit when looking at
commons-vfs that you
get a 'commons-webdav' library instead of, presently,
downloading the
slide source tree to compile a recent webdav client lib with
several
bugfixes that are not in an existing binary yet.
Bonus) Since the Apache Jackrabbit project also has a
WebDAV client
library, would be a very good opportunity to bring the two
different
client libraries together under one 'commons-webdav' (or
whatever it
will be called).
As to with commons-httpclient, or as its own
commons-library, that is
open for discussion. WebDAV has a dependency on
commons-httpclient, but
since WebDAV has its own level of domain knowledge above and
beyond
normal HTTP, keeping it on its own does not seem
unreasonable (again,
based on the domain knowledge needed).
My two coppers,
-D
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin van den Bemt [mailto:mllist mvdb.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 9:42 AM
> To: Slide Users Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Release the webdav client and consider
moving it
> into a jakarta's commons Httpclient
>
> So technically it is ok to separate them.
>
> Slide is doing better on activity atm and I rather
focus on
> increasing that activity and in the end move to a Slide
TLP,
> then splitting up Slide to commons, leaving Slide with
just
> the server part and possibly no future of becoming TLP
and
> therefor no future.
> Also I wonder if commons is a place where the slide
client
> has any life expectancy, since people interested in
webdav
> are hanging around here and not necessarily at
commons.
>
> Though choice.
>
> Mvgr,
> Martin
>
> Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
> > It does make sense also from the technical view.
AFAIK client and
> > server are independent developments.
> >
> > Oliver
> >
> > 2007/4/5, Martin van den Bemt <mllistmvdb.net>:
> >> Does it also make technical sense or are there
no shared
> deps between
> >> server and client ?
> >> Willing to drive this (the only things I did
in Slide was
> working on
> >> the client). At the earliest I would do this
after or at
> apachecon,
> >> since I am really swamped till the end of the
month
> >>
> >> Mvgr,
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> Oliver Zeigermann wrote:
> >> > Maybe it is a good idea to move the
WebDAV client library to
> >> > Jakarta Commons. However, there must be
an individual
> driving the process.
> >> >
> >> > Oliver
> >> >
> >> > 2007/4/4, Kostis Anagnostopoulos
<ankostisgmail.com>:
> >> >> Hi to all developers,
> >> >>
> >> >> I hava noticed that the WebDAV client
library is a very
> important
> >> >> piece for many other projects.
> >> >> But the latest stable version is 2.1,
release 2 and a
> half years ago!
> >> >> (According to this:
> >>
http://apache.otenet.gr/dist/jakarta/slide/binaries/)
> >> >>
> >> >> I would like to ask:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Are there any plans for releasing
a newer version of slide
> >> >> webdav client?
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) Does anybody agree on me that the
WebDAV functionality may
> >> >> belong to the Apache commons
HTTP-Client library?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> (I hope) I'm not starting a
flame-war, i just wish that this
> >> >> useful project gets some stable
deliverables that
> others can depend on!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Kostis
> >> >>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: slide-user-unsubscribejakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: slide-user-helpjakarta.apache.org
|
