On Sep 19, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Hans Gilde wrote:
Yeah, no problem. No huge memory leak for 1.0. :)
yes please! :)
+1
-pete
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm Ok with that.
paul
Le 21 sept. 04, à 02:46, Dion Gillard a écrit :
My take is:
* 1.0 should be as close as API compatible with the beta releases
since the betas were so long lived.
* 1.1 should be functional updates to 1.0 but no API change.
* 2.0 should clean the API.
How does this sound?
---
+1
I don't really see any other good way.
-Original Message-
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:47 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
My take is:
* 1.0 should be as close as API compatible wit
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:16 PM
> To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'; 'Dion Gillard'
> Subject: RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
>
> I do allot of extending of Jelly and Embedded is good for embedding the part
> about running a s
0, 2004 7:16 PM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'; 'Dion Gillard'
Subject: RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
I do allot of extending of Jelly and Embedded is good for embedding the part
about running a script.
I'm more afraid that the public API changes will break existing
t would be broken later.
-Original Message-
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:42 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
On Mon, 20 S
That's a good point... except that's nowhere in the docs except in the
javadoc.
Maybe add a paragraph in the page "Details" (which sadly carries an
"overview" section title) ?
paul
Le 20 sept. 04, à 13:42, Dion Gillard a écrit :
I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly
I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:32:04 +0200, Paul Libbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
> wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
> Maybe a much
Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
Maybe a much more moderate proposal than jelly-api.jar, e.g., one or
two classes that encompass most common usages and are recommended
officially would do the trick a
Yeah, no problem. No huge memory leak for 1.0. :)
-Original Message-
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:58 PM
To: Hans Gilde
Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
That sounds like a good idea.
I've also been following your work on the m
: Dion Gillard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 1:02 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Jelly and a 1.0 release
There's currently one issue in Jira for Jelly Core against v1.0, which
is the public API.
If there is anything p
Nothing from me. I'd say do the public API and push out RC1.
Nice work.
Cheers,
Brett
Quoting Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There's currently one issue in Jira for Jelly Core against v1.0, which
> is the public API.
>
> If there is anything people want fixed for 1.0, please enter it into
There's currently one issue in Jira for Jelly Core against v1.0, which
is the public API.
If there is anything people want fixed for 1.0, please enter it into JIRA ASAP.
Please note that the taglibs are now able to be released separately
from Jelly Core, so fixing those is a separate thing to get
13 matches
Mail list logo
