<Ryan Hoegg>Does anyone have an opinion on what they'd like to see in Codec before a release? </Ryan Hoegg>
FYI, our only requirement right now is for a Base64 class. We use three different ones so far (don't ask). Gary -----Original Message----- From: Ryan Hoegg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:53 AM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [codec] promote from sandbox Just read the etiquette thing. I think a good indicator that Codec Base64 is ready for consumption is its successful integration in both HttpClient and XML-RPC. I see that it is used in many more projects, but those are the two who have been active recently. Once we have two projects using it, I imagine other projects will be more likely to jump on board. However, Base64's readiness for consumption is probably not enough to warrant Codec's promotion by itself. Does anyone have an opinion on what they'd like to see in Codec before a release? Tim's documentation on an architecture roadmap is a good start, imho. -- Ryan Hoegg ISIS Networks http://www.isisnetworks.net Stephen Colebourne wrote: >Promotion is probably a good idea, but it should be without backwards >compatability code IMO. You imply that there is a codec 1.0 release, but >this cannot be as sandbox components may not have releases... > >Stephen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
