Geoff Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WRITES:
<snip/>
> >Two questions.
> >1. Is eventcache stable enough for me to use or will it be
> undergoing
> >radical changes?
> >
>
> That's a good question. It's still marked alpha/stable/whatever but
> that is more by inaction than purposeful decision (at least on my
> part). Of course it's up to the larger community but it's
> been mostly
> Unico and myself that have worked on it. Practically, I'd feel more
> comfortable having heard from more people who have used it before
> locking it down - so your use could contribute to its stability.
We finally have resources scheduled to look at integrating our code with
your code, the time frame is currently mid-summer, so don't hold your
breath...
> Having said that, it's a simple API and shouldn't need much
> tweaking.
> In fact, the part of the API you would rely on is two _very_ simple
> interfaces (Event and EventAware). The only thing I ever imagined
> affecting that is a feature I envisioned originally
> ("wildcard" events)
> but which never came to pass. I have since wondered whether
> they would
> be all that useful and now feel they could probably be
> implemented in a
> back-compatible way anyway. Originally I was questioning the
> use of Map
> based hash lookup for events because that would (probably)
> not support
> wildcards.
>
> Maybe we should consider marking the block "stable"?
+1 That would be good from our perspective. If it made it into 2.1.6 as
stable we'd be more comfortable depending on it.
>
> >2. From the vague description I have given does this sound like a
> >"proper" usage of eventcache?
> >
<snip/>
