----- Original Message -----
From: "Remy Maucherat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:34 AM
Subject: Re: [HttpClient] An overview of the different alternatives
> > Good summary, it seems pretty accurate to me.
> >
> > My preferences would be, in order, C and A. C provides a smoother
upgrade
> > path by making bug fixes etc. to the main branch more accessible, but A
> > insures that nobody downloads the wrong JAR. I'm not a big fan of B,
and
> I
> > recognize the difficulties of D.
> >
> > I think nearly everyone who has looked at the refactored interface
prefers
> > it, so it seems like not releasing the refactored code (option B) is not
> > doing service to the users. If we pick C, I'd like to specify that the
> 1.x
> > and 2.x versions are both maintained, but that the 1.x branch is more
> > specifically oriented toward Slide compatilibity.
>
> I would agree with C too if the "no new features" rule isn't interpreted
too
> strictly. It is quite obvious that the plan is not to introduce
> groundbreaking changes, since our goal is to maintain API compatibility in
> the 1.x branch.
>
+1
> Remy
>
>
