On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > That would work too, although I think if there are new APIs included, > then the version number should be 4.1.0, not 4.0.2.
Oh, yeah. I'm not set on a version number. 4.1.0 would be fine. -- Mark Miesfeld > Rick > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Mark Miesfeld <miesf...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I wonder if we could include your new ooDialog work in the new release >>> and make it the 4.1.0 version? There are a couple of new APIs that we >>> added to support that, but I suspect it would not be difficult to >>> back-port those changes to a 4.0.1 base. It would be nice to get all >>> of that work out if you think it's ready for primetime. >> >> The problem is, I'm not sure that it is ready for prime time. In >> particular, the new documentation that I started, will take me some >> time to finish. And I'm worried about backwards compatiblity. My >> tests look good, but I constantly find things that other people's >> programs do that I never imagined people would do. For instance, >> invoking methods on a subclass object in init() before the superclass >> is initialized. >> >> What I would really like to do, <grin>, is back-port the couple of new >> APIs to a 4.0.1 base, release it as 4.0.2, and add a separate beta >> ooDialog that could be downloaded from SourceForge. >> >> The beta ooDialog could replace the 4.0.2 release ooDialog by swapping >> the oodialog.dll and ood*cls files. (I was thinking of writing a >> simple installer that would do the swapping for the user and allow >> swapping back.) >> >> Your objection to back-porting those couple of new APIs to 4.0.1 was >> that they weren't documented. So, I was going to try and overcome >> that objection by doing the documentation myself. <grin> >> >> My motivation for this was the, perhaps forlorn, hope that enough >> users would work with the beta ooDialog to give feedback on the new >> classes and new methods before they were set in stone. And find >> backwards compatibility issues, that could maybe be worked out. >> >> -- >> Mark Miesfeld >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: >> >> Show off your parallel programming skills. >> Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd >> _______________________________________________ >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: > > Show off your parallel programming skills. > Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
