Gianugo Rabellino wrote: > > >>Also, what about having a list of changes that are in 2.1 only and > >>need/should be ported to the final release, run a vote against them (as > >>it was done before beta) and decide about them? > >> > >> > > As far as I can see, there should nothing more need a backport. > We did so > > already with most of the required features. I know, you will > say now: And > > what about the configurable SourceHandlers? > > Well, I'm +0 on this. > > > Gotcha :) Even if I'm basically +0 too: I have no intention to ask for a > backport of the XML:DB stuff in 2.0, so my code (and my ego ;P) is not a > concern. Actually I'm not even committing it because I want to keep > focus on the final release and after that start discussing about > new stuff. > Good :-)
> However this can be seen as a small API change, so I'm wondering if it > could be the case to have it in place already in the release: I think > that the Source abstraction is a great feature, but without a > configuration it might be hard to implement any other protocol (my > future plans are to include LDAP and IMAP as Sources), so probably it > would be nice for end users to have such a possibility. > I think adding Configurable is not an API change, it's an compatible extension. So, I see no problem with changing it in a later release. > But I also have to understand what's going to happen with the > integration in Avalon of the Source stuff: if things are going to change > anyway (if the framework is moved under the Avalon umbrella and possibly > changed) then there might be no question for this anymore. > Yes, the Avalon version will be Configurable. Carsten > Ciao, > > -- > Gianugo > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
