Personally, I don't see any problem with adding a dependency for 2.1. If anyone does have an issue with this, it would be really good to hear from you now.
Regards,
Adrian Sutton.
On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 11:32 PM, Eric Johnson wrote:
Kalnichevski, Oleg wrote:
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.One possible solution would be to build a version of HttpClient that unpacks the commons-codec and combines it with HttpClient. People who need the "one jar does it all" could use that one. We could even be clever and pull out only those class files we need, thus satisfying Adrian's desire as well. Granted, there would then be two JAR files, but we could clearly indicate that the combination one would go away by 3.0.
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]
Just an idea.
-Eric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------- Intencha "tomorrow's technology today" Ph: 38478913 0422236329 Suite 8/29 Oatland Crescent Holland Park West 4121 Australia QLD www.intencha.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
