Stefan Teleman wrote: > > > This does assume 2.2 interfaces are Uncommitted. They could be made > > Volatile in which case the above issue is not an issue as far as > > stability contracts (of course it still results in an annoyed user). > > But there has been reclutance in using Volatile. > > This was precisely the assumption made when Apache 2.0.x was first integrated > Solaris: that Minor/Micro Apache releases will stay binary compatible.
It wouldn't matter if they are Volatile [assuming you were replying to the paragraph you quoted]. Volatile isn't a great solution though. If modules require recompilation that means it is not binary compatible. -- Jyri J. Virkki - jyri.virkki at sun.com - Sun Microsystems
