On Jan 8, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Konstantin Kolinko <knst.koli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2015-01-08 9:42 GMT+03:00 Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@apache.org>: >> I made a couple of minor improvements to Apache Taglibs last year related to >> XML parsing and to how we load libraries (it now uses the TCCL which means >> the jars can be shared between webapps as well as be included in a webapp as >> before). I would like to perform a minor release (1.2.2) to include these. >> Before I do, are there any other issues that should be addressed? >> >> One change in 1.2 I think was not useful was the split of the 1.0 EL >> evaluator into its own jar. I propose to merge that back so we end up with >> two jars: one with the javax classes and one with our implementation. > > I do not see a point in merging them back. Personally, I do not use > JSTL 1.0 EL implementation and do not plan to use it. (IIRC, the only > occurrence when I used them was when I made a typo in tag library url, > like copy-pasting from a wrong tld file. Hilarity ensued). > Unexpectedly using a wrong implementation may be confusing.
That was the kind of thing that prompted me to split it off in the first place. The other was to the allow users to use a newer EL implementation (such as the one from the container) which could have performance or efficiency improvements over the original one, especially now EL has been decoupled from JSTL and JSP. However, I found a problem with the -compat packaging that would prevent that jar being used; see #57427. As no-one else had reported that my assumption was that this was not that useful. > Another point is that I do not like changing release packaging in a > point release. Is this driven by a real users' demand? Have there > been any public complaints from real users (e.g. an issue in > Bugzilla)? What do we do with Maven artifacts? Abandon one of them? As I’d not seen any feedback on the split (public or private) I was thinking of simply reverting to the 1.1.x model. Sounds better though to fix the problems with the -compat version and defer merging until a potential 1.3 release. — Jeremy
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail