Hi all guys,
since I need [fileupload] @work, I intend to do a major bump that
recently involved other commons component.
Any objection?
TIA,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
+1... jdk1.3...
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
+1. Why not Java 6 since 5 is mostly dead.
Gary
On Mar 5, 2013, at 10:05, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Hi all guys,
since I need [fileupload] @work, I intend to do a major bump that
recently involved other commons component.
Any objection?
TIA,
-Simo
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version: Currently
the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the bundle/library version. If
you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure the API export is *not* updated
to 2.0, otherwise consumers in OSGi
Hi Felix,
Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
bundle/library version. If you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure
the API export is *not*
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Felix,
Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
bundle/library
On 5 March 2013 18:57, KONTRA, Gergely pihent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Felix,
Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
Currently the API
Hallo Jörg!
Sounds great.
But please, keep in mind to take care of the package export version:
Currently the API is exported at 1.2.1 being the same as the
bundle/library version. If you update the library/bundle to 2.0, make sure
the API export is *not* updated to 2.0, otherwise consumers
On 5 March 2013 15:34, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
best,
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of generics in digester justified the update from
digester-1.8 to digester-2.0.
Is the generics
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of generics in digester justified the update from
digester-1.8 to digester-2.0.
Is the
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.orgwrote:
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of
On 5 March 2013 19:57, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Just for the record: I don't intend to do a major rewrite ATM, just
update and bugfix.
So why the change to 2.0?
I intend to add at least generics, where possible - in the past, the
introduction of generics in digester
Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
though it is a bit of a jump.
Is the addition of generics sufficiently significant?
what you said makes perfectly sense, 2.0.0
Am 05.03.2013 um 21:56 schrieb Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org:
Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
though it is a bit of a jump.
Is the addition of
On 5 March 2013 20:56, Simone Tripodi simonetrip...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks both Gary and Sebb,
It seems very unlikely that anyone will still be running Java 1.3 or
Java 1.4, so the change to 1.5 is not likely to concern users, even
though it is a bit of a jump.
Is the addition of generics
Why not 1.3 ?
Or at least wait until you see how much is changed before deciding
whether it deserves a point release or a minor release bump.
nice idea, let's keep 1.2.3 until something drives us on increasing
the minor version
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
17 matches
Mail list logo
