be added to enhance the VS debugger extension?
> Larry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Beckerle
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 11:22 AM
> To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Discuss: Layer changes - 3.7.0 or 4.0.0 ?
>
> I think the compelling argumen
changes - 3.7.0 or 4.0.0 ?
I think the compelling argument to get the layers stuff into 3.7.0 is that we
don't want any more layers built using 3.6.0-and-prior APIs.
I tend to agree we should not make the next release 4.0.0 because we have other
things to get into that release, and the layers
, 2024 11:49 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: Discuss: Layer changes - 3.7.0 or 4.0.0 ?
I'm agreeable with seeing 4.0.0 drop Java 8 support, bump to Scala 2.13, merge
sapi and japi into api, change directory / jar names, and remove deprecated
parts. I also don't think it's worth supporting
Please weigh in with
any concerns about putting any of these changes in 3.7.0 and/or 4.0.0.
John
-Original Message-
From: Steve Lawrence
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2024 4:48 AM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: EXT: Re: Discuss: Layer changes - 3.7.0 or 4.0.0 ?
I don't think we should make our
I think the compelling argument to get the layers stuff into 3.7.0 is that
we don't want any more layers built using 3.6.0-and-prior APIs.
I tend to agree we should not make the next release 4.0.0 because we have
other things to get into that release, and the layers stuff is not an
official part
I don't think we should make our next release 4.0.0. There's a handful of
changes that have been discussed that probably require a major version bump
(e.g. drop Java 8 support, bump to Scala 2.13, merge sapi and japi into api,
change directory structures/jar names, remove deprecated
Separate from the pull request review, I want to discuss whether these
layer changes, which are really a more or less rewrite of the system go
* in 3.7.0,
* delay them to 4.0.0
or come up with some co-existence strategy so they can be added to 3.7.0
without displacing the existing stuff.
I
