I've never used a version of the server which supports null and don't intend to spend any of my time on it. So it's not a problem for me and never will be.
Chad Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It actually is a problem, because there is code that exists that is > expecting "null" to be valid. > > Chad > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Rall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: frozen specification > > > Chad Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Would it be possible that the current implementation be backwards >> compatible? Anyone who was using the helma implementation that had null >> support probably has no use for the current implementation, because it >> doesn't have null support. > > Any future changes will remain backwards compatible within major > releases (i.e. 1.0 will be compatible with 1.1). Only in major point > releases would incompatible changes be considered. I wouldn't worry.
