Re: AW: [OJB-developers] moving ojb to jakarta

[Martin P. <mpo...@ma...>]

Mahler Thomas wrote:

>Hi Martin,
>
> =20
>
>>-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
>>Von: Martin Poeschl [mailto:mpo...@ma...]
>>Gesendet: Freitag, 3. Mai 2002 01:46
>>An: obj...@li...
>>Betreff: [OJB-developers] moving ojb to jakarta
>>
>>
>>ojb is accepted as a new apache projects (there is one vote=20
>>missing, but we got 6 of 6 votes so far :-)
>>
>>   =20
>>
>
>great news!
>
> =20
>
>>there is some discussion on ge...@ja... to=20
>>find the 'right place' for ojb
>>feel free to join the list and discussion
>>
>>   =20
>>
>
>I'm following the discussion and will post a comment today.
>
good!!

>>i started to convert the docs to xdocs (the format all docs=20
>>at jakarta are written in)
>>i'll check them in tomorrow and make the generated site=20
>>available for public review
>>   =20
>>
>thanks
>
i'll upload a snapshot now to www.apache.org/~mpoeschl/ojb/ :-)

>>there are some task left before we can move to jakarta:
>>
>>- we should decide which coding conventions should be used
>>i propos to use=20
>>http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/common/code-standards.html
>>
>
>We had some discussions on codeconventions a few days ago. They will be =
a
>superset of the turbine conventions.
>
cool! i'll copy the turbine coding-style document to the xdocs and we=20
can adopt it ...

>>- the packages will be renamed to org.apache.ojb
>>   =20
>>
>OK!
> =20
>
>>i'll do the package renaming and import the sources as soon=20
>>as the repo ist ready and i get the ok=20
>>from the ojb developers ;-)
>>   =20
>>
>OK! Eclipse will help you much here !
>
haven't used eclipse but i'll give it a try ... i'm using jbuilder which=20
also includes some refactoring functions ..

>>i'll also make the code match the coding conventions (so we=20
>>need a decision soon)
>>
>
>Chris made a very good proposal. The only I disagree on is the placement=
 of
>brackets.=20
>OJB uses already the Turbine style
>try
>{
>    // code here
>}
>catch (Exception bar)
>{
>    // code here
>}
>
>And I think we should stick to this.
>
+1

>Another important note:
>I asked the developers to consent ochanging the licence style. Until now
>none vetoed.
>Florian Bruckner (he wrote the reversedb tool) used the GPL for his stuf=
f.
>But he also consented to change to the Apache licence.
>
>So we can also start with replacing the license statement, if that is
>required.
>
yes, the apache license has to be placed in all source files ...

martin

>thanks for your efforts,
>
>Thomas
> =20
>