Folks!
Thanks for caring that much and sorry for me being quiet until now as
I am the guilty person.
The design we are talking about actually is quite weird as it is a
stub of a former implementation. There is this interface and there is
*exactly* one implementation for that interface and IMHO
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 14:12 -0500, Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 1/10/07, Joerg Heinicke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rahul Akolkar rahul.akolkar at gmail.com writes:
Generally speaking, an interface-compatible change will at most change
the
private interface of a component, or simply add
Rahul Akolkar rahul.akolkar at gmail.com writes:
Generally speaking, an interface-compatible change will at most change the
private interface of a component, or simply add classes, methods and
attributes whose use is optional to both internal and external interface
clients.
And this is
On 1/10/07, Joerg Heinicke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rahul Akolkar rahul.akolkar at gmail.com writes:
Generally speaking, an interface-compatible change will at most change the
private interface of a component, or simply add classes, methods and
attributes whose use is optional to both
On 1/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: joerg
Date: Mon Jan 8 13:41:21 2007
New Revision: 494203
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=494203
snip/
This change warrants a major release for [transaction].
-Rahul
Log:
TRANSACTION-11: Added
Rahul Akolkar rahul.akolkar at gmail.com writes:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=494203
snip/
This change warrants a major release for [transaction].
Really? I don't mind if the current code is release as 2.0. But for such a minor
change (though in the interface)? Please find
On 1/8/07, Joerg Heinicke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rahul Akolkar rahul.akolkar at gmail.com writes:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=494203
snip/
This change warrants a major release for [transaction].
Really? I don't mind if the current code is release as 2.0. But for such a
