Scott Sanders wrote:
> > > As you probably know, I've been working on a branch of httpclient to
> > address
> > > several issues that I believe prohibit a public 1.0 release, including
> > > several critical bugs, and several design issues that complicate or
> > prohibit
> > > fixing those bugs and adding new features in line with the httpclient
> > > charter and scope. Since that refactoring is nearly complete, and
> > Vincent's
> > > recent postings are beginning to press the issue, I'll open up my
> changes
> > > for discussion (not that they've been hidden up to this point). While
> > > personally I believe every one of these changes is a postive step, I'm
> not
> > > trying to ram them down anyone's throat either, I'm just trying to open
> up
> > > the discussion
> > >
> > > To obtain this branch of httpclient, simply run "cvs -q
> update -P -d -C -r
> > > rlwrefactoring" from the root of httpclient.
> > >
> > > As discussed below, there are docs, javadocs and tests that should
> > > demonstrate and document the use of this package.
> > >
> > > Below is an enumeration of the major changes I've made to the package,
> > > although there are probably other changes that I can't recall right now.
> > > I'd be more than happy to defend or discuss individual changes, although
> > > here my intention is simply to enumerate them.
> >
> > Sorry, but while the bug fixes are more than welcome, the refactoring
> itself
> > looks rather gratuitous to me. Every change in the "bugs fixes" and
> > "functional enhancement" categories of your list can be introduced without
> > any API breakage (or I missed something). In terms of API design, there's
> no
> > limit to fanciness.
> >
> > I appreciate the good will you mention here :
> >
> > > * It has been (and still is) my intention to prepare the necessary
> patches
> > > for Slide to make it fully compatible with this refactoring. It should
> be
> > > relatively straightforward to do so.
> >
> > ... but I don't trust you too much on API compatibility issues, given what
> > you already did with the logging.
> >
>
> Remy, are you willing to accept patches to allow Slide to use
> commons-httpclient? I will help Rod to prepare them such that Slide is
> impacted in the smallest amount possible. I understand how you feel, but I
> do not want to see 2 versions of httpclient in jakarta land :(
>
> Whether or not you are willing to accept patches for Slide, would you (or
> anyone else for that matter) like to see the current httpclient released as
> a 0.9, so that you could continue to use that?
>
> Scott
What we need is a real release of the code from a month ago + bugfixes.
No logging, no extra dependencies, no API changes (add methods only if needed)
Then if we need a new API, we can then design one and then a smooth transition,
being backwards compatible for at least a couple of months.
Also a commitment that there will be support on the first release.
Patching slide doesn't solve anything, there are users out there that use
HttpClient (Slide version) already. Of course you can volentier to patch my
swing client (200 workdays) and a cocoon2 based web version as well...
Dirk
