Tim, By no means I want to see further development of [Codec] stopped or hindered for the sake of other projects' convenience. All I want is to ensure that basic features of [Codec] are still usable in those projects that are less fortunate with the JDK compatibility requirements.
BTW, did anyone have time to take a look at the patch (PR #26617) <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26617> I submitted a while ago? If you find it worthy of further work, I'll happily provide all the missing bits. Cheers Oleg On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 22:12, Tim O'Brien wrote: > Oleg, no one has talked about breaking existing interfaces - 1.2 will > still be supported be (at the very least) by all existing features. > > This is more of a discussion of future growth, we are going to find a way > to enable features dependent on 1.4 while still support (creating a > distributable) for 1.2. > > Tim > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > > Tim, Gary > > > > Currently [Codec] is still Java 1.2 compatible. And yes, there are > > [Codec] users who would like it to stay that way at least for some time. > > Not that we enjoy working around Java 1.2 limitations that much, but we > > simply have obligations to our users as well (there are several > > projects, including Apache ones, dependent on [HttpClient] that need to > > support a wide spectrum of platforms including those that do not have > > modern JDKs). > > > > We will support 1.2 compatible [Codec] branch ourselves, if we > > absolutely have to, but would still very much appreciate if you kept us > > posted before the decision was taken to make [Codec] dependent on Java > > >1.2 features. > > > > I apologize for being such a pain in the rear > > > > Oleg > > > > > > On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 04:37, Tim O'Brien wrote: > > > Gary Gregory wrote: > > > >> public java.util.List operation(java.nio.ByteBuffer buffer); > > > > > > > > This brings up an interesting issue: How do we potentially package and > > > > deliver some code that depends on Java 1.4. In a second [codec] jar? I think > > > > we should keep the JRE requirement to a minimum for [codec]. Here, we are > > > > stuck on 1.3.1 for the foreseeable future. > > > > > > We'll tackle the problem of creating a 1.3 compatible release at relase > > > time, but for the time being, I'm not going to reject good code from > > > highly motivated parties within the ASF. I don't think anyone plans on > > > breaking existing interfaces, but the proposed addition is new > > > functionality. > > > > > > > Some others, I imagine need 1.2 compatibility. > > > > > > If you are using 1.2, you can expect releases that support 1.2 to be > > > maintained if there are developers with the motivation to maintain these > > > releases. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
