I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users of the JAX-RS stuff. Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target.
-----Original Message----- From: Benson Margulies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2 I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect, sticking with 2.0.x. A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3, and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2. On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion: > > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches, but pretty > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it is a > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of 2.1.2 > or wait for 2.2? > > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2: > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still > changing) > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway > > Con: it does affect existing apps > > > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away. > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait > that long could be an issue. > > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list as > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users are > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it > for 2.1.2. > > > --- > Daniel Kulp > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > >
