Quoting "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Kurt Schrader wrote:
>
> > So what do we need a 4.1 branch for then?
>
> If we take the action Remy recommends, we won't. I'm +1 for this (it
> will certainly
> reduce the effort of double-committing all the changes), if we're
> willing to accept
> the fact that it will increase the time before a 4.0 production quality
> release is
> ready.
Given the delay caused by the security manager support inclusion and the Valve
modifications, it won't probably cause any additional delay.
> The 4.1 branch was originally created because of a "feature freeze" on
> 4.0. The
> various proposals today are effectively to "unfreeze" the 4.0 branch, so
> that some
> new functionality (already committed on the 4.1 branch) can get moved
> into 4.0
> instead, along with the other proposed changes that would otherwise need
> to be posted
> to both.
>
> We can recreate the 4.1 branch at some future point when 4.0 is
> refrozen.
Agreed.
It that case, I suggest that the 4.1 branch be merged back ASAP. Having a non-
beta quality web connector in a beta wasn't a good thing anyway, IMO.
I wrongly interpreted the proposal on the security manager, as I was answering
an email dealing with i18n at the same time (so I'm +1 now).
As Kief suggested, I think that no wrapping should occur if no security manager
is present (common sense).
There is also a code change needed to provide proper i18n support. Instead of
putting in a hack in 4.0 to get around one half of the issue, I suggest instead
that some code is moved from the connector.http package to the connector
package (some buffers, as well as some code which needs to be merged into
HttpRequestBase).
Remy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
