rssh wrote: > Good news from one side, from other -- I slightly disappeared why > patches, submitted as issues to bug tracking system, does not come to > release (from one side) and not rejected (from other). Particularly > it;s about #58: http://issues.jabsorb.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58 (patch > is trivial; problem is serious) ; http://issues.jabsorb.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34 > (more then year ago); and (http://issues.jabsorb.org/show_bug.cgi? > id=54 , may be less, because this is really complex topic). Looks, > like submitting issues have zero effect. >
Regards issue 34, I'm sorry I probably dropped the ball on this one as I remember was going to apply your patch, although I looked back at the issue and I can't find a complete patch to apply (instead the issue has a zip file attached to it). Please see: http://jabsorb.org/SubmittingPatches on the correct format for patches (might be the reason why it didn't get applied in the first place). There is a note on the page on how to handle the addition of new files. It is probably better to take this discussion on to the jabsorb-dev list. > So, if exists for me some way to help with resolving this issues or > this is impossible without forking own branch ? May be you need > volunteers, or some > criteria for patch accept/reject which will simplify decision about > accepting/rejecting ? > Regards 58, there would need to be some feedback as to whether the proposed patch is the desired behavior. It might be nice to still have an option to allow BigDecimal to be serialized by the number serializer and to do this by default (although make it possible to switch this on/off in the configuration) - this way we wouldn't break anyone who is currently using BigDecimal within the reduced precision of the JavaScript Number type. I would call the current behavior more of a trade-off due to type parity between Java and JavaScript and a potentially desired behavior for some (although I'm all for options, so we should also make our change keep the current behavior as an option rather than remove it?). Do any others have an opinion on this change? _______________________________________________ Jabsorb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.jabsorb.org/mailman/listinfo/jabsorb-dev
