Hi, Considering version 1.x should come when API is stable I don't object to breaking API compatibility if it's for a good reason.
Cheers, On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 00:09 +0200, Ioan Eugen Stan wrote: >> Hello Oleg, >> >> Pleas do. I've migrated around James components a lot. My focus for >> now is on releasing 3.0.0 and updating the website infrastructure and >> documentation. >> My coding time is very limited, but I'll be more than happy to assist >> you with ideas, code review, push for releases and integrate changes >> in James Server components. >> If you have time look at the way Jackson API is built [1],[2]. It's >> immutable and has a nice API. Documentation and examples are also >> needed. Especially regarding what RFC's we are implementing and what >> RFC's are related to this issue. >> >> Cheers, >> >> [1] https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-core >> [2] http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonInFiveMinutes >> > > Ioan et al > > I am about to take the first cut at the DOM API redesign. If no > objections are raised I am planning to do it on trunk and _without_ > preserving backward compatibility with 0.7. If you would rather prefer > me to work on a branch (or keep deprecated 0.7 DOM APIs in place) please > do let me know. > > I also would like to make MimeConfig immutable which cannot be done > without breaking API compatibility. Please complain loudly if you think > it is not OK. > > Oleg > -- Ioan Eugen Stan 0720 898 747
