I think the new version number helps reflect passivity changes (specifically, non-passive changes: package changes, combined jars, etc.), in addition to your stated goal of reflecting effort. So, I think it follows that if 2.1 will truly require Java 1.6 then it should perhaps be 3.0. I'm assuming that "Java 6 support" means making java 6 the minimum, which would also be non-passive to your consumers.
-----Original Message----- From: Jerome Louvel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:57 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Restlet 1.2 to become Restlet 2.0 Hi Bruno, Restlet 2.0 will keep the scope of Restlet 1.2, so Java SE 6 support will have to wait for Restlet 2.1. Regarding SNEPGO, I think it's more reasonable to move it to Restlet 2.1 then. Best regards, Jerome Louvel -- Restlet ~ Founder and Lead developer ~ http://www.restlet.org Noelios Technologies ~ Co-founder ~ http://www.noelios.com -----Message d'origine----- De : news [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Bruno Harbulot Envoyé : mercredi 6 mai 2009 15:05 À : [email protected] Objet : Re: Restlet 1.2 to become Restlet 2.0 Hi, This sounds sensible. Just a quick question: what does this mean with respect to support for Java 6? I thought it had been mentioned that Java 6 support was planned for Restlet 2.0. I'm not personally requiring Java 6, although support for SPNEGO would (unless we re-implement what was added to JGSS in Java 6 in Restlet, but I doubt it's worth the effort). Best wishes, Bruno. Jerome Louvel wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Looking at the amount of new features that we added so far since Restlet > 1.1 (with some more coming), the amount of refactoring and > reorganization done in the Restlet API (touching the core Resource API) > and extension packages and the growing number of special Restlet > editions (Java SE/Java EE, GWT, Google App Engine and soon Android), it > seems appropriate to rename the Restlet 1.2 release into Restlet 2.0. > > > > The idea is to give existing users an accurate feeling of the amount of > effort required when upgrading from Restlet 1.0 or Restlet 1.1 and for > new users to realize the amount of effort and changes done since Restlet > 1.x. > > > > I hope it will make sense to you guys. We have updated our issue tracker > and our roadmap here: > > http://www.restlet.org/about/roadmap > > > > Next release will be Restlet 2.0 M3 and will replace the current Restlet > 1.2 M2 (tagged “testing”). > > > > Best regards, > Jerome Louvel > -- > Restlet ~ Founder and Lead developer ~ http://www.restlet.org > <http://www.restlet.org/> > Noelios Technologies ~ Co-founder ~ http://www.noelios.com > <http://www.noelios.com/> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=2080653 ------------------------------------------------------ http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=2081537 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any included attachments are from Cerner Corporation and are intended only for the addressee. The information contained in this message is confidential and may constitute inside or non-public information under international, federal, or state securities laws. Unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or use of such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the addressee, please promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the delivery error by e-mail or you may call Cerner's corporate offices in Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A at (+1) (816)221-1024. ------------------------------------------------------ http://restlet.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4447&dsMessageId=2081655
