hi thomas, > > But since jsr283 should be mainly backwards compatible > It's not. Some methods now return something that didn't before. as christoph mentioned i think those are in relatively isolated places so we would probably try to postpone any work that would require the api change (which in my mind is very little) to the latest point in time possible.
> > In case we do ran up with compatibility issues, > > I think we have a good case to request a change in JSR 283. > Maybe making the JSR 283 API backwards compatible is the best solution. that would be ideal. but since there are some obvious corrections needed, we would like to make those fixes as soon as possible. particularly, the example of adding a return value that you mention above does not break existing code, therefore i consider it relatively harmless and suitable for a 2.0 release. regards, david
