I dont understand what is expected anymore... There are some new features and fixes that break the API at the binary and source level; I'm merely applying the best practice recommendations - and previous 2.1 rejection basis.
This version has been 18 months in the making, fixes quite a few bugs and adds what could be considered major functionalities; making it a new major version does not seem stupid. Besides, the very scarce JEXL's community is expecting these changes and no other Apache component really uses JEXL 2. Besides, anyone using a scripting engine in a binary safe way will (should) use it through JSR-223... What is the danger here, besides scaring off anyone trying to use JEXL ? Even if the next version is again a major one after 18 months (on average), would it be so bad ? I'm really puzzled and can't understand the motivation to reject (besides the artifactId). And if you feel disappointed, how would you feel if your work and time was only considered low quality or a waste by people who aren't actually using it? After all, may be OGNL is the way to go and JEXL moved to the attic... Sorry for the rant and thanks for another lesson in humility. Henrib -- View this message in context: http://apache-commons.680414.n4.nabble.com/Release-JEXL-3-0-based-on-RC1-tp4119894p4120071.html Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
