Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-cocoon-users-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 10901 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2002 14:11:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cocoon-users-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: cocoon-users@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list cocoon-users@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 10851 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 14:11:45 -0000 From: "Carsten Ziegeler" To: Subject: RE: Today usability of 2.1 version ? Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 16:14:52 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <006501c25352$ed856040$7c15290a@goaltech.com> Importance: Normal X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 03.09.2002 16:11:44, Serialize by Router on PBSN1/Systeme und Netzwerke(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 03.09.2002 16:11:45, Serialize complete at 03.09.2002 16:11:45 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Barbara Post wrote: > > Hi, I finally may use 2.1 version but need to know : are the main > components > in use in 2.0.3 version still stable ? New components may be less stable, > ok. > This is not easy to anser. Most main components are still stable in 2.1, but some core components have changed - and most of them are stable, too. But there seems to be some minor problems in the current caching implementation of 2.1 - which should be fixed soon - the more people try out 2.1, the more bugs are found, the stabler it gets. > What is the difference between 2.1-dev and 2.1 beta ? What's missing today > from cvs-head ? > There are no real plans for 2.1 beta yet. > What about sunRise, is it as stable as in 2.0.3 ? There is a NPE > with 2.0.3, > jdk 1.3.1 and sunrise-lougout action... > I think sunRise, sunSpot and also the SourceWritingTransformer are more stable in 2.1 than in 2.0.3. > Thanks a lot (I want to use SourceWritingTransformer so rather moving now > than recompiling Cocoon-2.0.3.jar ?). And there are new > functionalities that > may help myself too... > Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please check that your question has not already been answered in the FAQ before posting. To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: