> True, but neither has HttpClient 2.1:) We will most likely have to put > some effort into getting a final codec release that contains this code.
> I agree, adding a jar could be considered an API break, but it was part > of our plan for 2.1. The only real API changes that this requires is > removing the already deprecated Base64 code. The EncodingUtil class > will not be changed. Right, but the problem is those folks who use CVS snapshots while insisting on complete (maximum) API compatibility with 2.0 branch. They have not been quite receptive to 'but it was part of our plan for 2.1' kind of arguments up to now. Of course, I can put up the same 'Evil Comrade' act as always, but I have a feeling that some of them did not quite appreciate my sarcasm. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
