DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26980>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26980 XMLStringPool is not useful as a base class ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-02-17 23:55 ------- We recently decided to: - Maintain binary compatibility between patch releases (where version is major.minor.patch) but not between minor releases. - Almost incidentally, to try to maintain source compatibility between minor releases, but not between major releases. But I wonder if the later goal is too ambitious? Are we going to cripple Xerces because (1) we don't want to keep rolling the major version and (2) we're C++ and so there's quite a few minor things we could (want to) do that will break strict source compatibility. What if we rephrase "source compatibility" as being more major, on the order of the change we went through in going to the idom? -jdb --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
