Thanks Reinhard for the link. Ehm, from what I see there, there is no need/deeper meaning for moving to Resettable. Or did I oversee something?
Well, this message implies that the plan was to use reflection to provide back-compatibility with recycle()
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=103287310702103&w=2
Don't know if that happened or if it's a good way to go, but that's a clue. I'm assuming 2.2 still doesn't compile much less run or we could just check this.
Geoff
-----Original Message----- From: Reinhard Poetz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Compatibility Issues with 2.2
see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&w=2&r=1&s=recyclable+rese ttable&q=b (especially Berin's comments)
Cheers, Reinhard
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Compatibility Issues with 2.2
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
So, is anyone against reverting back to Recyclable? If not, I will do it in the next days.
I thought there was a deeper difference than semantic but assumed that someone (Berin?) would pipe in and explain.
If you've looked into it carefully and think that's it, I agree with you.
Geoff
-----Original Message----- From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Compatibility Issues with 2.2
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
I've got couple of questions...
(1) Was Recyclable deprecated or not?
afaik, no.
(2) Can we implement both?
This could be a dangerous road, I think. What should happen if a component implements both?
You are asking me??? Ask the guys who invented Resettable! :)
Vadim
