> Some of the Planned section of that page kind of seem like just general
> development that are necessary if we don't intend to release James 3.0
> for some time (things such as updates to redirect mailet, maybe the new
> matchers).
> Not a big deal, but I would prefer to release James 3.0 sooner rather
> than later with whatever can be quickly agreed rather than wait too
> long.
IMO, James v3 is at least 6 months off from being stable, and probably close
to a year to a Release Build unless we get some additional developer
resources. My expectation is that entire repository code will be replaced,
amongst other things. The Mailet space classloader code will need to be
stable. Etc. These things take time.
James v2 is stable. In my view, such features and fixes that can be made
within the stable code base without negatively impacting it ought to be
made, especially if they are forward compatible with v3.
On the other hand, I think that other things certainly should be defered to
James v3 in order to take advantage of its new features. For example, I may
defer the GeoMatcher because I really want Matcher configuration for it, and
I don't know that it makes sense to do major Listserv work in James v2 when
James v3 will have a radical new respository system.
Maybe we are just talking labels, but to me the distinction is that James v3
has new API and new structures. James v2 is the current stable code with no
structural (or risky) changes.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
