Hi,
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Tobias Bocanegra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> do you want to move the interfaces or should i do it?
It's probably better if everyone does it for the features they are (or
have been) working on.
At the same time I'd suggest that we create separate Jira feature
Tobias Bocanegra wrote:
do you want to move the interfaces or should i do it?
i will do it myself. the ac interfaces are not completely
in sync with the current status... i have to touch them
anyway.
angela
On 5/9/08, Tobias Bocanegra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/9/08, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Marcel Reutegger
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > +1 for new packages in jackrabbit-api, with a clear warning that the
> > > interfaces will
On 5/9/08, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Marcel Reutegger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1 for new packages in jackrabbit-api, with a clear warning that the
> > interfaces will be removed again as soon as JSR 283 is final.
>
>
> +1 Sounds good to
Hi,
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Marcel Reutegger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1 for new packages in jackrabbit-api, with a clear warning that the
> interfaces will be removed again as soon as JSR 283 is final.
+1 Sounds good to me too. We already have quite a few components, so
I'd rather a
Hi,
+1 for new packages in jackrabbit-api, with a clear warning that the interfaces
will be removed again as soon as JSR 283 is final. We might want to write that
those are only used for development and testing and must not be used by client code.
regards
marcel
Tobias Bocanegra wrote:
hi,
Hi,
I would not create a 'temporary project'. A 'temporary package' is enough.
Regards,
Thomas
On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Angela Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yes, that was the idea. alternatively we could also create an interim
>> project module, jackrabbit-jsr283-api and drop
yes, that was the idea. alternatively we could also create an interim
project module, jackrabbit-jsr283-api and drop that later. this way,
we don't need to "clutter" the jackrabbit-api.
i would prefer your second suggestions. we can then
state from the beginning that this is a temp. project
only
Tobias Bocanegra wrote:
hi,
as the implementation of the new features for jsr283 have started, i
suggest to put the new jsr283 interfaces to jackrabbit-api instead to
core (where possible). this way, we can already figure out
inter-module dependency issues and people can start using experimental
On 5/9/08, Esteban Franqueiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's a good idea, as long as we don't have to keep those interfaces
> there for
> backcompatibility, and we can drop them quickly.
yes, that was the idea. alternatively we could also create an interim
project module, jackrabbit-jsr
I think it's a good idea, as long as we don't have to keep those interfaces
there for backcompatibility, and we can drop them quickly.
Regards,
Esteban Franqueiro
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] en nombre de Tobias Bocanegra
Enviado el: jue 08/05/2008 1
11 matches
Mail list logo
