On 10/29/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This may be another case where we should consider placing the major
version number in the package name.
I don't think so.
There are no binary compatibility changes. Only slight behavioral
changes within what has always been allowed for
This may be another case where we should consider placing the major
version number in the package name.
Stephen
Sandy McArthur wrote:
As I mentioned on commons-user I plan to prep a pool 2.0 release
candidate in the next week. I'll compile a complete list of changes
but here are the importa
As I mentioned on commons-user I plan to prep a pool 2.0 release
candidate in the next week. I'll compile a complete list of changes
but here are the important changes I can recall right now.
1. Requires Java 1.4
2. Adds the org.apache.commons.pool.composite pool implementation that
I started wri
