My bad :(
I must admit that this is a side effect that I have not duly considered.
I considered the source and binary compatibility and I missed this
serialization specific incompatibility.
Gianny
On 3/04/2005 6:15 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On 3/22 in revision 158589 the API for Configuration
On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I personally think this is way way way too early to be worried about
binary compatability between configuration objects build with pervious
releases and builds. Also, are you taking only about the official M1,
M2 and M3 releases or builds from
I tend to agree but, I think that it's a good habit to start getting into.
Regards,
Alan
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I personally think this is way way way too early to be worried about
binary compatability between configuration objects build with pervious
releases and builds. Also, are you taking
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:17:55AM -0700, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
What do you, the community, think about us spending time thinking about
binary compatibility between milestone releases?
I'm inclined to cut the developers a lot of slack given that
Geronimo's way pre-1.0. But it would be good
On 3/22 in revision 158589 the API for Configuration changed in that the
return type from getConfigurationClassLoader() changed from ClassLoader
to a ConfigurationClassLoader. This means all configurations built
before then are now inoperable with the current tree as the attribute
type in the
