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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
