I have given my +1 to go ahead but after reading Rodney's comment, I
actually completely agree with him. So my vote is also -0 for releasing as
it stands and +1 after adding good documentation.
Thanks Rodney !
-Vincent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Waldhoff, Rodney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: [httpclient] [VOTE] HTTP client 1.0 release
> > I'd like us to vote on releasing version 1.0 of the HTTP Client
component.
>
> I'm +1 on establishing a release plan for httpclient and moving quickly to
> execute it, but I think I'm -0 for releasing it as it stands (with or
> without log4j support/dependencies), for the following reasons:
>
> a) Over the past couple of weeks there have been several significant fixes
> implemented--either correcting the behavior or clarifying the proper
> behavior, depending upon which way you look at it--including the behavior
of
> query-string versus input parameters, the use of SSL support, the behavior
> of sessions, etc. I wonder what else might be lurking out there, and I
> suspect we haven't cleanly and clearly specified the "contract" of
> httpclient and how it should behave.
>
> b) On a related note, there is literally no documentation for httpclient
> outside of the java code itself, and what we see there is fairly sparse.
I
> would argue that httpclient is complicated enough to warrant some decent
> documentation in order to maintain a standard of quality. I think this
> applies to both end-user documentation and specifications of the proper
> (expected) behavior for development.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think we could get to a 1.0 release in a week or so,
> but I'm not sure that at this point the scope, use, contract or
> freedom-from-defects of httpclient is well enough defined or documented to
> warrant a 1.0 release. (I should point out that we use httpclient
literally
> continuously in a critical production application, so I think I'm as eager
> as anyone to get to an official 1.0 release, I just think we should do it
> right.)
>
> - Rod
>
