My strategy with Lang btw is to just develop it and see what the API looks like at the end. We spend too much time worrying about the version number up front :)
Hen On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Liam Coughlin <lscough...@gmail.com> wrote: > That makes a little more sense then how I read the Stephen originally, and > yes you're probably right -- though I don't think you're going to be able to > get much varargs in without wrecking binary anyway since a lot of the > parameter ordering doesn't lend itself to it. > > I just don't feel that a 1.3 java 5 "Now with Special Sauce but the Same > Old Hamburger" release would be all that useful in the long run, but i could > be completely wrong. > > Cheers, > -L > > > > n...@fabulich.com <d...@fabulich.com>> wrote: >> > "NEEDS" is a little strong.... I think there's room in the world for a >> > backwards-compatible dbutils 1.3 with generics and varargs followed >> shortly >> > afterward by a more thoroughly re-worked dbutils 2.0. >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
