Since we were planing for a 2.0 release, I thought it is OK to do backwards
incompatible changes and document them properly. Well we have some changes
in the API as well, which will affect the existing mediators and so forth.
Do you think we should keep the ability to run the 1.x mediators as it i
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I don't see the point in changing the namespace unless there is an
> incompatibility at the core. We wrote the model to be very flexible.
>
> Having a migration XSLT is great, but it seems to me a "fix" for
> something that is trick
PS My apologies for not bringing this up earlier :-(
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> I don't see the point in changing the namespace unless there is an
> incompatibility at the core. We wrote the model to be very flexible.
>
> Having a migration XSLT is great, but it seem
I don't see the point in changing the namespace unless there is an
incompatibility at the core. We wrote the model to be very flexible.
Having a migration XSLT is great, but it seems to me a "fix" for
something that is tricky. Also, we spent a lot of effort on backwards
compatibility: for example,
