Sanjay Radia wrote:
No. The 1.0 proposal was that it included both API and wire compatibility.
The proposal includes a lot of things, but it's so far just a proposal. There's been no vote to formally define what 1.0 will mean. In every discussion I've heard, from the very beginning of the project, it primarily meant API stability. You've added wire compatibility, data stability, security, restart recovery, etc. These are all very nice features to have, essential perhaps in some contexts, but they may nor may not be required for 1.0. I worry that if we keep piling more things on, we'll never get to 1.0.
What would be wrong with calling it 1.0 when we have end-user API stability? Why would that be a bad thing?
Doug
