Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-taglibs-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 38695 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2002 19:09:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Sep 2002 19:09:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 19565 invoked by uid 97); 13 Sep 2002 19:10:12 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-taglibs-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 19534 invoked by uid 97); 13 Sep 2002 19:10:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact taglibs-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Tag Libraries Developers List" Reply-To: "Tag Libraries Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list taglibs-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 19522 invoked by uid 98); 13 Sep 2002 19:10:11 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) X-Server-Uuid: 6E802067-ECFC-4FC2-A617-DD5220DD9CBB Message-ID: <7382FCA44E27D411BD4A00508BD68F9504BB0C9C@pigeon.tumbleweed.com> From: "Martin Cooper" To: "'Tag Libraries Developers List'" Subject: RE: [String] stablizing release Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:08:31 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-WSS-ID: 119CE74A330466-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N +1 to all that. -- Martin Cooper > -----Original Message----- > From: Timothy Kettering [mailto:timster@mac.com] > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 7:23 AM > To: Tag Libraries Developers List > Subject: Re: [String] stablizing release > > > Yeah. I agree that since Strings hasn't hit 1.0 there's no > (technically) obligation to provide that functionality, after > all beta > software is subject to change, but I know I wouldn't be an > happy camper > if I found out that I had to scramble to find an obscure > nightly build > that would be the last build of the Strings Taglib Formerly Known As > Strings, and carefully archive that if I had built an entire web > application around it. > > My opinion would be: Put out 1.0 release based on the current form, > just so that current users can have a final build to work with, then > advise users that development on Strings in that form will no longer > continue, and proceed with a 2.0 release with the refactored tags. > Maybe it makes us just as bad as MS/Netscape in the > version-incrementing game, but I think it's a lot more user-friendly > that way than putting the whammy on a lot of very surprised > users when > they find out their "1.1" Strings taglib binary download > reduced their > web application to a smoking mess of "500 - Servlet Exception" pages. > > -tim > > > On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 09:46 AM, Henri Yandell wrote: > > > > > Issues here are that generally when you make a 1.0 release you are > > entering a backwards compatbility contract [or frequent arguments]. > > > > With the changes I'd like, having functionality in two > places will be > > very > > painful for users, but having the ones they've coded against vanish > > will > > be even worse. > > > > It's probably a development vs user issue. Until I see a > 1.0, I don't > > feel > > obliged to users to worry about backwards compatibility, but I'm > > probably > > just fooling myself :) > > > > I'm happy with a 1.0 [though it depends on a beta of > commons-lang] and > > then a 2.0, or a milestone-1, and then a 1.0. > > > > Hen > > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, Tim Kettering wrote: > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: