On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 16:38, Dalibor Topic wrote: > Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 14:10, Dalibor Topic wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > Well, my suggestion would be that the branches are more for the benefit > > of users rather than developers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the > > japitools comparisons suggest that 1.1 is just about supported. This > > would seem to be a solid base to give to those who want something to > > work with, at least for the time being, as a Java replacement without > > having to wonder about holes. As far as developers go, I would expect > > focus to mainly stay on 1.4 as it is now, with appropriate patches that > > also cover 1.1 being added there. However, if you think that would be > > too much effort, then I can see your point to an extent. I do think > > there is something to be said for giving users something more stable > > though, rather than the kind of random implementation guarantees we give > > now. > > Japitools only says which APIs can be compiled against, it says nothing > about the spec-adherence of the implementation (the dreaded FIXMEs! ;). > And so goes the other discussion... ;-)
> There are no guarantees because noone stepped up to the plate to provide > them. If you want to be the one, great! If you feel that you can pull > off making Classpath implement the remaining bits for 1.1, and closing > the holes, more power to you. Just keep the patches, mauve tests, and so > on flowing in, and everyone will be happy. > I'm definitely willing to try, at least. > cheers, > dalibor topic -- Andrew :-) Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics' respond those who don't want to learn.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
