New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Starting v3.0 :D #357

Closed
wants to merge 16 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@LordFokas
Member

LordFokas commented Aug 25, 2016

This is my first piece of work for 3.0

Since this will introduce a lot of breaking changes I propose we freeze the code before accepting this, and resume normal activity once I finish it, probably in 2 weeks from now.

Meanwhile PRs will potentially break everything.
I'd like to highlight that I changed all the packages to org.nanohttpd.*, since that's the nomenclature that's being used for everything including artifacts and I'd like to be consistent.

I'd also like to bring to your attention that I expect @ritchieGitHub and/or @elonen to have a good look at this in order to revise and accept it, as I'm not going to be so cheeky as to accept this one with the potential to break every single thing ever :p

Also, we should probably drop the websockets module and merge its code into the core module since in a while it will start to make a lot more sense to be there. All packages have been appropriately named so that both fit together nicely, but since this messes with external tools I'm not going to do it myself.

@LordFokas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@LordFokas

LordFokas Sep 6, 2016

Member

@ritchieGitHub this is being a bit confusing to figure out, can you lend me a hand when you have the time? I'm delivering my course's (CS / IT Engineering) final project this week so I'm rather busy and I've had a hard time figuring what the hell is wrong by myself so far.

Travis / JUnit complain about being unable to reach class definitions, but they are there. Do we need to declare any kind of inter-module dependencies in order for this to work on Travis?

Member

LordFokas commented Sep 6, 2016

@ritchieGitHub this is being a bit confusing to figure out, can you lend me a hand when you have the time? I'm delivering my course's (CS / IT Engineering) final project this week so I'm rather busy and I've had a hard time figuring what the hell is wrong by myself so far.

Travis / JUnit complain about being unable to reach class definitions, but they are there. Do we need to declare any kind of inter-module dependencies in order for this to work on Travis?

@ritchieGitHub

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ritchieGitHub

ritchieGitHub Sep 6, 2016

Member

Yes, this Friday i should be able to find the time

Member

ritchieGitHub commented Sep 6, 2016

Yes, this Friday i should be able to find the time

ritchieGitHub added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 9, 2016

@ritchieGitHub

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ritchieGitHub

ritchieGitHub Sep 9, 2016

Member

the problems are fixed, checked in the changes in a branch:
https://github.com/NanoHttpd/nanohttpd/tree/LordFokas-development

The problems where caused by the different package names, probably your IDE did not refactor them correctly. Specially the service loader config files. nor the build works

Member

ritchieGitHub commented Sep 9, 2016

the problems are fixed, checked in the changes in a branch:
https://github.com/NanoHttpd/nanohttpd/tree/LordFokas-development

The problems where caused by the different package names, probably your IDE did not refactor them correctly. Specially the service loader config files. nor the build works

@ritchieGitHub

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@LordFokas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@LordFokas

LordFokas Sep 9, 2016

Member

Oh nice, thanks

Member

LordFokas commented Sep 9, 2016

Oh nice, thanks

@LordFokas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@LordFokas

LordFokas Sep 9, 2016

Member

@ritchieGitHub I'll close this and merge the branches so that we can get future PRs to stop conflicting until 3.0.0 is released.

Member

LordFokas commented Sep 9, 2016

@ritchieGitHub I'll close this and merge the branches so that we can get future PRs to stop conflicting until 3.0.0 is released.

@LordFokas LordFokas closed this Sep 9, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment