Makes sense to me.
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 26, 2010, at 11:38 PM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote:
I do not think it would become undeprecated though. I think when the
OSGi Alliance specify how namespace handlers work we would end up
with new interfaces in new packages and we would drop support for
the existing packages.
Alasdair
On 27 Jan 2010, at 04:39, "Alan D. Cabrera" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I've never seen a deprecated interface subsequently become
undeprecated.
Maybe we could mark the version 1.0-RC1?
Just an idea.
Regards,
Alan
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:59 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I'd love to see a release of aries-blueprint in particular. I
wonder if it would be a good idea to mark "deprecated" some of the
interfaces such as NamespaceHandler that aren't yet in a spec and
might change but will be used by lots of people? On the other
hand geronimo-blueprint got released without such markings.
thanks
david jencks
On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
There's been a lot of activity lately so I'd like to propose we
do a
release so we can get some wider user feedback. I think we should
give
it a version of 0.1 and stick to versions <1 while we're in the
Incubator.
Then there is the question of whether to independently version the
high level modules or keep them lock-step. For now I think we
should
keep them lock-step until we feel a need to change that.
What does everyone think?
Thanks,
Jeremy
