> FOP underwent some major refactoring to massively reduce memory usage, and
> it might not be possible to make a workable deprecated API for backwards
> compatibility. (Mark?) We don't break API compatibility lightly, and don't
> expect to have to do so again in the foreseeable future. Sorry for
At 06:34 PM 8/9/01 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>
>> Sam, I figure you meant the "perennially in alpha" comment sort of
>> tongue-in-cheek. I hope you did, anyway.
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Let's get one thing straight - we're not in alpha. We're not even close
>to
>> alpha.
>>
>> You're
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
> Sam, I figure you meant the "perennially in alpha" comment sort of
> tongue-in-cheek. I hope you did, anyway.
>
[snip]
>
> Let's get one thing straight - we're not in alpha. We're not even close
to
> alpha.
>
> You're on the XML PMC...it would be nice to hear constructiv
At 10:33 AM 8/9/01 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>I realize that xml-fop is one of those projects which is perennially in
>alpha. What I am looking for is concrete suggestions on how Cocoon2 should
>deal with this state.
Sam, I figure you meant the "perennially in alpha" comment sort of
tongue-in-chee
