-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike Snare wrote: > I hope not. That would be horrible. There's a good segment of us > still using java 1.4 who would be significantly annoyed at that, and > for good reason. Yes, and some of that "us" you reference includes me. :-)
> > I know that the tap developers don't tend to concern themselves with > backward compatibility, but it seems you should try to *build* a user > base -- not replace it wholesale. I believe as you see 4.0.2 come around backward compatibility is now a real issue that we're facing in moving forward. There were lengthy discussions prior to 4.0 which, at the time, was 3.1 which forced the 4.0 moniker due to incompatibilities. Will there be issues? Yes. Are we trying to mitigate those and provide paths forward? Absolutely. Part of that is deprecation with javadocs, part is documentation, and part is splitting out what's "external" from what's "internal". (currently this is problematic as what should be "internal" is needed to perform ceratin customizations that should be irrelevant from an API standpoint - we're working on that). The farther a project goes, the more attention has to be paid as there is more "backward" with every step forward. But as a "user" who currently develops/maintains 3.X (moving to 3.0.4 now) and 4.X (4.0 currently) AND a "tap developer" now, I think I'll be concerning myself with both for quite a while (and 5.0 when it comes) - as well as their compatibilities/incompatibilities. > > I really hope this statement is wrong. > > -Mike Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEOzKjaCoPKRow/gARAqujAJ4ywSZRui247ZkRrnRQrtm1uiTr7gCfZEs4 gzAUdbpuc0iNWViMz+39Vug= =94J9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
