peter royal wrote:
On Jun 11, 2008, at 9:07 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
we have discussed both options a month ago, and there were quite a
concensus to get these changes into a postponed 2.0, instead of
delivering a 2.0 and including changes into a 3.0.
Now the environment has changed a bit in the last few weeks, and we
have a lot of thing to do in order to get a 2.0 out, even if we don't
include the ByteBuffer rewrite.
IMHO, we can go for a documented 2.0 for the moment (and it will take
a while), and start a branch for 3.0.
whoops! silly me for missing that :) must have been buried in a thread
i glazed over :)
anyways, yes, i agree with a documented and cleaned up 2.0, with more
substantial changes in a separate branch for the time being. we've
been promising 2.0 for a LOOONG time, so i think we owe it to the
community to deliver upon that.
-pete
I have also started a thread about NIO 2.0 (expected soon for Java 7), I
was wondering if we can't define a long term roadmap where, for instance :
2.0 : expected by Q3/Q4 2008, with the current trunk content, documented
and decyphered,
3.0 : somewhere in 2009, with the new ByteBuffer implementation (and
other things to be defined)
4.0 : Support for NIO 2.0 (or may be another name like MINA2, I don't
know). Not that Java 7 is widely used right now, I don't even think that
more than 50% of the Java users have switched to Java 6 yet, but it's
good to give ome visibility to our users ...
wdyt ?
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
