On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Niall Pemberton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
Hi Paul,
I don't want to put you off, but I'm just in the process of writing up
some
--- Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Niall Pemberton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does removing the parameter solve the
leaking?
Hi Paul,
I don't want to put you
+1
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 3/14/08, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, Niall Pemberton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How
Niall Pemberton wrote:
IMO breaking compatibility with a *Beta* release is OK, but does
anyone have any objections to doing that?
+1
Breaking a Beta release is OK in my book
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
I've been looking at the memory leaks described in BEANUTILS-291[1]
and am considering making API changes that will break compatibility
with the BeanUtils 1.8.0-BETA release to remove one of the issues. The
changes however are in new Converter implementations added after the
previous BeanUtils
How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
Paul
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Niall Pemberton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I've been looking at the memory leaks described in BEANUTILS-291[1]
and am considering making API changes that will break compatibility
with the BeanUtils
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How does removing the parameter solve the leaking?
Hi Paul,
I don't want to put you off, but I'm just in the process of writing up
some stuff that I'll post on the JIRA ticket - which is probably the
best place to discuss
