Hi Mike! Mike Braden wrote: > It is usually typical for a version recommendation to be > > x.x or later That's true, but only for valid versions. The usual statement would be: 'JDK v1.1 or later, 1.3 recommended' and might even be 'JDK v1.1 or later, Sun's JDK 1.3 recommended' > I guess you could have issues with depreciations in the newer API? Yes. It's not an important fact, anyway, just that it shocked me the first time. Now it sounds about right :) Un saludo, Alex.
- Re: [PROPOSAL/VOTE] HTTP client library package Vincent Massol
- Re: [PROPOSAL/VOTE] HTTP client library package cmanolache
- Re: [PROPOSAL/VOTE] HTTP client library package Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: [PROPOSAL/VOTE] HTTP client library packa... Remy Maucherat
- [VOTE] HTTP client library package as a commons c... Remy Maucherat
- Re: [VOTE] HTTP client library package as a c... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: [VOTE] HTTP client library package as a c... Scott Sanders
- Re: [VOTE] HTTP client library package as... Craig R. McClanahan
- Re: [VOTE] HTTP client library package as a c... Alex Fernández
- RE: [VOTE] HTTP client library package as... Mike Braden
- RE: [VOTE] HTTP client library packag... Alex Fernández
- RE: [VOTE] HTTP client library package as a c... Mike Braden
- Re: [VOTE] HTTP client library package as a c... Vincent Massol
- RE: [PROPOSAL/VOTE] Digester Package Waldhoff, Rodney
- RE: [PROPOSAL/VOTE] Digester Package Waldhoff, Rodney