commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dion Gillard <dion.gill...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Date Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:46:38 GMT
My take is:

* 1.0 should be as close as API compatible with the beta releases
since the betas were so long lived.
* 1.1 should be functional updates to 1.0 but no API change.
* 2.0 should clean the API.

How does this sound?
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:27:05 -0400, Hans Gilde
<hgilde-commons@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Actually, Embedded is a great example: wouldn't we want to move it out of
> the impl package? Thus breaking all code that uses it. It's these kinds of
> changes that I'd be worried about.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Gilde [mailto:hgilde-commons@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:16 PM
> To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'; 'Dion Gillard'
> Subject: RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
> 
> I do allot of extending of Jelly and Embedded is good for embedding the part
> about running a script.
> 
> I'm more afraid that the public API changes will break existing TagLibs.
> 
> It's a matter of releasing 1.0 and breaking existing TagLibs vs. risking
> people developing lots more TagLibs that would be broken later.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dion Gillard [mailto:dion.gillard@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:42 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
> 
> I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
> 
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:32:04 +0200, Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
> wrote:
> > Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
> > wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
> > Maybe a much more moderate proposal than jelly-api.jar, e.g., one or
> > two classes that encompass most common usages and are recommended
> > officially would do the trick and avoid this ?
> >
> > paul
> >
> > Le 20 sept. 04, à 01:37, Hans Gilde a écrit :
> >
> >
> > > Maybe the public API task should also be put off for 1.1. It seems to
> > > me that any of the suggestions would result in somewhat significant
> > > API changes. We could make it clear in the 1.0 release that the Java
> > > API will change but the Tag libs form a stable XML API.
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> --
> http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 



-- 
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message