On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]>wrote:
> >>> Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just > >>> update and bugfix. > >> > >> So why the change to 2.0? > > > > I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the > > introduction of generics in digester justified the update from > > digester-1.8 to digester-2.0. > > > > Is the generics introduction enough to justify the major bump? > No, because of type erasure, you can add generics and be binary compatible. > > Uhm it just came in my mind that [pool] had a different case - @Gary, > before I start digging in the mail archive, do you remember the > discussion we had when just increasing the supported JDK version? > The discussion WRT [pool] was of the type 'don't do generics in 1.x because 2.0 is coming out real soon now, it's going to confuse users, no one's going to support 1.x and 2.x', and so on. Well, I'm sure glad I put the effort to do 1.6 with generics because there is still no sign of Pool2 :( Gary > > TIA! > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
