Version 2.0.8 is the latest stable release. It currently supports Perl
5.003 regular expressions in the org.apache.oro.text.regex and
org.apache.oro.text.perlpackages. The main development goal is
to upgrade these packages to support Perl 5.8 regular
expressions. The development plan will lay out the path to
achieving this objective and this status page will report the
state of our progress. Our current objective is to settle on a
development plan sometime in the near future.
Immediate short-term development goals are summarized in this
extract from the oro-dev mailing list:
3. Prioritize this crop of changes. My bias is:
1. Conditional compilation supporting a J2ME target
2. Optional table-based character type lookup
3. Theoretically inlinable input iteration abstraction,
using CharSequence for J2SE 1.4
4. Proper case folding.
5. Possibly pool Perl5Repetition objects or something else
to reduce impact of memory allocation.
This order is based on dependencies that will minimize work as well
as complexity. You need 1 before you can do 3 if you're going to
support multiple JVMs. You want to do 3 before you do 4 if 4 might
affect code that iterates through input; also 3 is easier to implement
and less likely to introduce a bug than 4. 5 we don't know if we need
to do yet.
Number 4 may not be a quick change to make, but the rest aren't large
time sinks. If Mark could get us started with just one functionality
unit test and Bob could get us started with some performance tests,
I think there will be sufficient grounds to nominate you both as
committers (Jon and I just have to dig one of the inactive initial
committers to provide a third vote), which will make it easier for
each of you to support your respective company's use of jakarta-oro.
This may just be the thing to kick some life back into development
and keep my time constraints from being such a bottleneck. As I
recall, Bob, you also were hoping for group-local modifiers. That's
something we can tackle if we successfully make it through the above.
As a side note, for bug fixes I'm comfortable with just making the
fixes as necessary. But for changes that impact the overall API
or implementation, I think the httpd group's original review code
first before commit, or at least discuss and agree on the implementation
beforehand, is the best way to go (and very manageable for this
project since it's not a lot of code). So, even though I've implicitly
assigned myself the implementation of some of these changes, I'm not
going to have at them all without discussion. For example, I'll propose
a way to reimplement the input traversal to support the use of
CharSequence and the list can criticize it and counter propose.