+1 I don't really see any other good way.
-----Original Message----- From: Dion Gillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:47 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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:[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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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]