Trustin Lee wrote:
Hi Emmanuel,
On 9/4/06, *Emmanuel Lecharny* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hi gang,
we have started some discussion relative to ADS 2.0 on the ML, and it
could be good to be able to distinguish this thread from the other ones.
I suggest that we start all mails relative to ADS 2.0 by [ADS 2.0]
btw, this ADS-2.0 is not scheduled for a close future, let's say it's
myuch more an experimental zone where we put some ideas we can't
implement in 1.0 - but that we may put in 1.1 or 1.2 ...)
I don't think we can't experiment with 1.1 or any further releases. I
thought we are rewriting ApacheDS completely from the number 2.0.
Right 2.0 is rewrite with 1.5 jdk while 1.1, 1.2 ... is not and still
uses jdk 1.4.
What we really need to do is to extract important design issues of
ApacheDS from a various level (API, architecture, ...) and resolve them
one by one in decending order of the impact.
I agree with you 100%.
I think this effort should
make what 1.1 is.
+1 here too.
Yep, as we discussed long before, 1.1 is a unstable
branch. So basically we shouldn't have any limitation on changing
anything critical.
Exactly.
Resolving a big design issue which causes a lot of
refactoring and rewriting should be done as earliest as possible in a
unstable branch.
I cannot agree with you more.
Alex
