Menu
▾
▴
epp-rtk-devel
|
From: Rob M. <Rob.Mew@NetBenefit.com> - 2003-03-14 16:17:48
|
Hi We've used a similar method for our re-factoring of the rtk's... com.tucows.oxrs.biz.epp.rtk, com.tucows.oxrs.name.epp02.rtk Cheers Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Manley [mailto:dm...@li...] > Sent: 14 March 2003 14:40 > To: epp...@li... > Subject: Re: [Epp-rtk-devel] Upgrade to 0705 and more > > > ok, well, that would be simple enough. To remain consistent with > package naming, my preference would be to use > "com.tucows.oxrs.epp02.rtk..." I think Ross was trying to > say that. ;) > > Can other please provide some feedback? agree? disagree? > > Dan > > Rick Wesson wrote: > > >There are several packages under epp02, starting with com > and org and they > >encompass the 02 version, having the package version at the > top of the tree > >makes navigating several package version easier. > > > >-rick > > > > > >On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > > > > > > > >>>intrest in a factory. I suggest that until we have an RFC that we > >>>prefix the name-space with the version thus the package > >>> > >>> com.tucows.oxrs.epp.rtk becomes epp02.com.tucows.oxrs.epp.rtk > >>> > >>> > >>Wouldn't that be tucows.oxrs.com.epp02.epp.rtk > >> > >>Which could be simplified as tucows.com.epp02.epp, no? > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >> > >> -rwr > >> > >> > >>"There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on > the shore like an > >>idiot." > >> - Steven Wright > >> > >>Got Blog? http://www.byte.org > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Rick Wesson" <we...@ar...> > >>To: "Daniel Manley" <dm...@li...> > >>Cc: <epp...@li...> > >>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:35 AM > >>Subject: Re: [Epp-rtk-devel] Upgrade to 0705 and more > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>Daniel, > >>> > >>>my desire for a multi-version support has diminished since > I re-factored > >>>all the different versions into a namespace prefixed by > their version. It > >>>simply works and I only had to write new implementations with minor > >>>changes. > >>> > >>>I've sufficiently solved the problem for myself and now have little > >>>intrest in a factory. I suggest that until we have an RFC that we > >>>prefix the name-space with the version thus the package > >>> > >>> com.tucows.oxrs.epp.rtk becomes epp02.com.tucows.oxrs.epp.rtk > >>> > >>>-rick > >>> > >>> > >>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Daniel Manley wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>>We're going to start on the 0705 upgrades to the Java RTK > shortly. .org > >>>>will be using this version of EPP. > >>>> > >>>>With the questions recently (and not so recently) about > redesigning the > >>>>[Java] RTK to house all supported versions of EPP in a > single jar, I've > >>>>done a bit of day dreaming with the DomainExample class. > I've committed > >>>>some changes which are my proposal to make the Java RTK > >>>>multiversion-friendly. Could you please take a look at this: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/epp-rtk/epp-r > tk/java/src/com/ > >>tucows/oxrs/epp/rtk/example/DomainExample.java.diff?r1=1.13&r2=1.14 > >> > >> > >>>>(it's a diff from CVS on the DomainExample. hopefully > the complete URL > >>>>is preserved in the list) > >>>> > >>>>This is by no means final -- I only committed it because > it would be > >>>>more accessible everyone to inspect. The idea is that an > EPPFactory > >>>>class would be able to generate instances of the XML > converter classes > >>>>(EPPDomainCreate, EPPContactCheck, etc...). A call to > >>>>EPPFactory.setEPPVersion() would set this up. The > org.openrtk....epp_* > >>>>IDL classes would still be directly accessible (ie. no factory for > >>>>those). The IDL classes would be the union of all the > supported EPP > >>>>versions and it would be up to the user to know what data > to supply for > >>>>the version of EPP they are using (you'd have to know this with a > >>>>factory anyway, so that's why I didn't bother with one). > >>>> > >>>>Comment/Questions/Suggestions/Discussion welcome. > >>>> > >>>>Dan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! > >>>>Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and > >>>>the chance of winning an Apple iPod: > >>>>http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>Epp-rtk-devel mailing list > >>>>Epp...@li... > >>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! > >>>Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and > >>>the chance of winning an Apple iPod: > >>>http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Epp-rtk-devel mailing list > >>>Epp...@li... > >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! > Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and > the chance of winning an Apple iPod: > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en > _______________________________________________ > Epp-rtk-devel mailing list > Epp...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel > This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology |
|
From: <mih...@gu...> - 2003-03-17 08:53:46
|
> We're going to start on the 0705 upgrades to the Java RTK > shortly. .org will be using this version of EPP. When do you plan to release new version of Java RTK.. I already started updating version 0.5 to support draft version 0.7 but if you are going to release new version in about 14 or 20 days I will probably wait for it. regards, Miha |
|
From: <dm...@li...> - 2003-03-17 14:09:02
|
I will have the development done in CVS by the end of this week. I should also have a good chunk of unit testing done by then as well. Dan >> We're going to start on the 0705 upgrades to the Java RTK >> shortly. .org will be using this version of EPP. > > When do you plan to release new version of Java RTK.. I > already started updating version 0.5 to support draft > version 0.7 but if you are going to release new version in > about 14 or 20 days I will probably wait for it. > > regards, > Miha > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! > Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and > the chance of winning an Apple iPod: > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en > _______________________________________________ > Epp-rtk-devel mailing list > Epp...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel |
|
From: <dm...@li...> - 2003-03-24 14:51:43
|
seems harmless enough (famous last words). I'm looking into this now. Do you see us having a "log4j.properties" file in the etc directory or just put these props in the rtk.properties file? Dan > > shall we create an effort to do the debug logging with > log4j insted of the hardcoded way? > > -rick > > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 dm...@li... wrote: > >> I will have the development done in CVS by the end of this week. I >> should also have a good chunk of unit testing done by then as well. >> >> Dan >> >> >> We're going to start on the 0705 upgrades to the Java RTK >> >> shortly. .org will be using this version of EPP. >> > >> > When do you plan to release new version of Java RTK.. I >> > already started updating version 0.5 to support draft >> > version 0.7 but if you are going to release new version in >> > about 14 or 20 days I will probably wait for it. >> > >> > regards, >> > Miha >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------- >> > This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! Get >> cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and >> > the chance of winning an Apple iPod: >> > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Epp-rtk-devel mailing list >> > Epp...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! >> Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and >> the chance of winning an Apple iPod: >> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en >> _______________________________________________ >> Epp-rtk-devel mailing list >> Epp...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel |
|
From: Daniel M. <dm...@li...> - 2003-03-14 16:36:26
|
Ack. All of these people refactoring without contributing to the project?!?!? I'm hurt. ;) Dan Rob Mew wrote: >Hi > >We've used a similar method for our re-factoring of the rtk's... >com.tucows.oxrs.biz.epp.rtk, com.tucows.oxrs.name.epp02.rtk > >Cheers > >Rob > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Daniel Manley [mailto:dm...@li...] >>Sent: 14 March 2003 14:40 >>To: epp...@li... >>Subject: Re: [Epp-rtk-devel] Upgrade to 0705 and more >> >> >>ok, well, that would be simple enough. To remain consistent with >>package naming, my preference would be to use >>"com.tucows.oxrs.epp02.rtk..." I think Ross was trying to >>say that. ;) >> >>Can other please provide some feedback? agree? disagree? >> >>Dan >> >>Rick Wesson wrote: >> >> >> >>>There are several packages under epp02, starting with com >>> >>> >>and org and they >> >> >>>encompass the 02 version, having the package version at the >>> >>> >>top of the tree >> >> >>>makes navigating several package version easier. >>> >>>-rick >>> >>> >>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>intrest in a factory. I suggest that until we have an RFC that we >>>>>prefix the name-space with the version thus the package >>>>> >>>>> com.tucows.oxrs.epp.rtk becomes epp02.com.tucows.oxrs.epp.rtk >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Wouldn't that be tucows.oxrs.com.epp02.epp.rtk >>>> >>>>Which could be simplified as tucows.com.epp02.epp, no? >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> -rwr >>>> >>>> >>>>"There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on >>>> >>>> >>the shore like an >> >> >>>>idiot." >>>> - Steven Wright >>>> >>>>Got Blog? http://www.byte.org >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "Rick Wesson" <we...@ar...> >>>>To: "Daniel Manley" <dm...@li...> >>>>Cc: <epp...@li...> >>>>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:35 AM >>>>Subject: Re: [Epp-rtk-devel] Upgrade to 0705 and more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Daniel, >>>>> >>>>>my desire for a multi-version support has diminished since >>>>> >>>>> >>I re-factored >> >> >>>>>all the different versions into a namespace prefixed by >>>>> >>>>> >>their version. It >> >> >>>>>simply works and I only had to write new implementations with minor >>>>>changes. >>>>> >>>>>I've sufficiently solved the problem for myself and now have little >>>>>intrest in a factory. I suggest that until we have an RFC that we >>>>>prefix the name-space with the version thus the package >>>>> >>>>> com.tucows.oxrs.epp.rtk becomes epp02.com.tucows.oxrs.epp.rtk >>>>> >>>>>-rick >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Daniel Manley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>>We're going to start on the 0705 upgrades to the Java RTK >>>>>> >>>>>> >>shortly. .org >> >> >>>>>>will be using this version of EPP. >>>>>> >>>>>>With the questions recently (and not so recently) about >>>>>> >>>>>> >>redesigning the >> >> >>>>>>[Java] RTK to house all supported versions of EPP in a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>single jar, I've >> >> >>>>>>done a bit of day dreaming with the DomainExample class. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>I've committed >> >> >>>>>>some changes which are my proposal to make the Java RTK >>>>>>multiversion-friendly. Could you please take a look at this: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/epp-rtk/epp-r >>>> >>>> >>tk/java/src/com/ >> >> >>>>tucows/oxrs/epp/rtk/example/DomainExample.java.diff?r1=1.13&r2=1.14 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>(it's a diff from CVS on the DomainExample. hopefully >>>>>> >>>>>> >>the complete URL >> >> >>>>>>is preserved in the list) >>>>>> >>>>>>This is by no means final -- I only committed it because >>>>>> >>>>>> >>it would be >> >> >>>>>>more accessible everyone to inspect. The idea is that an >>>>>> >>>>>> >>EPPFactory >> >> >>>>>>class would be able to generate instances of the XML >>>>>> >>>>>> >>converter classes >> >> >>>>>>(EPPDomainCreate, EPPContactCheck, etc...). A call to >>>>>>EPPFactory.setEPPVersion() would set this up. The >>>>>> >>>>>> >>org.openrtk....epp_* >> >> >>>>>>IDL classes would still be directly accessible (ie. no factory for >>>>>>those). The IDL classes would be the union of all the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>supported EPP >> >> >>>>>>versions and it would be up to the user to know what data >>>>>> >>>>>> >>to supply for >> >> >>>>>>the version of EPP they are using (you'd have to know this with a >>>>>>factory anyway, so that's why I didn't bother with one). >>>>>> >>>>>>Comment/Questions/Suggestions/Discussion welcome. >>>>>> >>>>>>Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! >>>>>>Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and >>>>>>the chance of winning an Apple iPod: >>>>>>http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>Epp-rtk-devel mailing list >>>>>>Epp...@li... >>>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! >>>>>Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and >>>>>the chance of winning an Apple iPod: >>>>>http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Epp-rtk-devel mailing list >>>>>Epp...@li... >>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! >>Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and >>the chance of winning an Apple iPod: >>http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en >>_______________________________________________ >>Epp-rtk-devel mailing list >>Epp...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel >> >> >> > > >This email has been scanned for viruses by NetBenefit using Sophos anti-virus technology > > > > |
|
From: Rick W. <we...@ar...> - 2003-03-15 19:36:54
|
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Daniel Manley wrote: > Ack. All of these people refactoring without contributing to the > project?!?!? I'm hurt. ;) anyone cosidered replacing the java rtk xml parsing with jdom (www.jdom.org) I'm looking at it for several other java+xml projects I have. -rick |
|
From: Anthony E. <ae...@si...> - 2003-03-16 01:45:51
|
I would suggest dom4j instead ( http://www.dom4j.org/ ). Having worked with both projects I believe that dom4j performs better and has better features. Sincerely, Anthony Eden Rick Wesson wrote: >On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Daniel Manley wrote: > > > >>Ack. All of these people refactoring without contributing to the >>project?!?!? I'm hurt. ;) >> >> > >anyone cosidered replacing the java rtk xml parsing with jdom >(www.jdom.org) > >I'm looking at it for several other java+xml projects I have. > >-rick > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! >Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and >the chance of winning an Apple iPod: >http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en >_______________________________________________ >Epp-rtk-devel mailing list >Epp...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel > > |
|
From: <dm...@li...> - 2003-03-24 15:00:06
|
What are your reasons for wanting to change? I see that our version of Xerces is really out of date, given the redesign they did to the packages. I don't have time at this moment to work on replacing the xml parser, but if others wish to contribute and there are enough people who would like to see a switch, then I don't see why we can't. Dan > I would suggest dom4j instead ( http://www.dom4j.org/ ). Having worked > with both projects I believe that dom4j performs better and has better > features. > > Sincerely, > Anthony Eden > > Rick Wesson wrote: > >>On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Daniel Manley wrote: >> >> >> >>>Ack. All of these people refactoring without contributing to the >>> project?!?!? I'm hurt. ;) >>> >>> >> >>anyone cosidered replacing the java rtk xml parsing with jdom >>(www.jdom.org) >> >>I'm looking at it for several other java+xml projects I have. >> >>-rick >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------- >>This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! >>Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and >>the chance of winning an Apple iPod: >>http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en >>_______________________________________________ >>Epp-rtk-devel mailing list >>Epp...@li... >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/epp-rtk-devel >> |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X