Hi there, I consider the server side of 2.0 to be relatively stable, we're using parts of it (but not the Server/Worker stuff) in production, and have been for a while.
Based on the review/bugfix of this morning, I'm not as convinced about the client side. The transport stuff is quite new, and would (modulo finalize() cleaning up) leak connections up until the patch I just made. HttpClient is also now at version 3.0, and some of the other commons components have updated their implementations (if not their API's). If we were to release 2.0 I would expect to be using a) The latest versions of other Apache components. b) The most appropriate version of the license (the code is still under an older license). Regards, Andrew. -----Original Message----- From: Henri Gomez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 3:06 PM To: xmlrpc-dev@ws.apache.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ws-xmlrpc/src/java/org/apache/xmlrpc CommonsXmlRpcTransport.java DefaultXmlRpcTransport.java LiteXmlRpcTransport.java XmlRpc.java XmlRpcClientWorker.java XmlRpcTransport.java Well I'm using this patched 2.0 on developpement systems without problems :) Will you still commit on 2.0 or should we consider the current HEAD as 'stable' ? On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:02:18 +0100, Andrew Evers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Henri, > > I'm currently focusing on fixing up 1.2 (the stuff you saw on 2.0 was to > fix a bug, not to add a feature). I'm also not that au fait with the > CommonsHttpTransport stuff (that's Ryan's baby), so I am loathe to add > features without test cases. > > Can you provide some test cases that use your gzip functionality? > > Creating a bugzilla bug and attaching the patch and a test case to it is > a great way of making committer's lives easier (and getting your patch > accepted as a result ;).
