You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com> on 2004/09/17 08:02:15 UTC
Jelly and a 1.0 release
There's currently one issue in Jira for Jelly Core against v1.0, which
is the public API.
If there is anything people want fixed for 1.0, please enter it into JIRA ASAP.
Please note that the taglibs are now able to be released separately
from Jelly Core, so fixing those is a separate thing to getting the
core released.
Our focus at the moment is to fix bugs, do documentation and make a
stable Jelly release. Major re-work and API changes should wait till
the 1.1 timeframe.
The plan is to release 1.0 soon, and not wait a long time like the
beta-3 to beta-4 timeframe.
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Nothing from me. I'd say do the public API and push out RC1.
Nice work.
Cheers,
Brett
Quoting Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com>:
> There's currently one issue in Jira for Jelly Core against v1.0, which
> is the public API.
>
> If there is anything people want fixed for 1.0, please enter it into JIRA
> ASAP.
>
> Please note that the taglibs are now able to be released separately
> from Jelly Core, so fixing those is a separate thing to getting the
> core released.
>
> Our focus at the moment is to fix bugs, do documentation and make a
> stable Jelly release. Major re-work and API changes should wait till
> the 1.1 timeframe.
>
> The plan is to release 1.0 soon, and not wait a long time like the
> beta-3 to beta-4 timeframe.
> --
> http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Hans Gilde <hg...@earthlink.net>.
+1
I don't really see any other good way.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:dion.gillard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:47 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
My take is:
* 1.0 should be as close as API compatible with the beta releases
since the betas were so long lived.
* 1.1 should be functional updates to 1.0 but no API change.
* 2.0 should clean the API.
How does this sound?
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:27:05 -0400, Hans Gilde
<hg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Actually, Embedded is a great example: wouldn't we want to move it out of
> the impl package? Thus breaking all code that uses it. It's these kinds of
> changes that I'd be worried about.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Gilde [mailto:hgilde-commons@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:16 PM
> To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'; 'Dion Gillard'
> Subject: RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
>
> I do allot of extending of Jelly and Embedded is good for embedding the
part
> about running a script.
>
> I'm more afraid that the public API changes will break existing TagLibs.
>
> It's a matter of releasing 1.0 and breaking existing TagLibs vs. risking
> people developing lots more TagLibs that would be broken later.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dion Gillard [mailto:dion.gillard@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:42 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
>
> I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:32:04 +0200, Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>
> wrote:
> > Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
> > wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
> > Maybe a much more moderate proposal than jelly-api.jar, e.g., one or
> > two classes that encompass most common usages and are recommended
> > officially would do the trick and avoid this ?
> >
> > paul
> >
> > Le 20 sept. 04, à 01:37, Hans Gilde a écrit :
> >
> >
> > > Maybe the public API task should also be put off for 1.1. It seems to
> > > me that any of the suggestions would result in somewhat significant
> > > API changes. We could make it clear in the 1.0 release that the Java
> > > API will change but the Tag libs form a stable XML API.
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>.
I'm Ok with that.
paul
Le 21 sept. 04, à 02:46, Dion Gillard a écrit :
> My take is:
>
> * 1.0 should be as close as API compatible with the beta releases
> since the betas were so long lived.
> * 1.1 should be functional updates to 1.0 but no API change.
> * 2.0 should clean the API.
>
> How does this sound?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com>.
My take is:
* 1.0 should be as close as API compatible with the beta releases
since the betas were so long lived.
* 1.1 should be functional updates to 1.0 but no API change.
* 2.0 should clean the API.
How does this sound?
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:27:05 -0400, Hans Gilde
<hg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Actually, Embedded is a great example: wouldn't we want to move it out of
> the impl package? Thus breaking all code that uses it. It's these kinds of
> changes that I'd be worried about.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Gilde [mailto:hgilde-commons@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:16 PM
> To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'; 'Dion Gillard'
> Subject: RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
>
> I do allot of extending of Jelly and Embedded is good for embedding the part
> about running a script.
>
> I'm more afraid that the public API changes will break existing TagLibs.
>
> It's a matter of releasing 1.0 and breaking existing TagLibs vs. risking
> people developing lots more TagLibs that would be broken later.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dion Gillard [mailto:dion.gillard@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:42 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
>
> I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
>
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:32:04 +0200, Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>
> wrote:
> > Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
> > wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
> > Maybe a much more moderate proposal than jelly-api.jar, e.g., one or
> > two classes that encompass most common usages and are recommended
> > officially would do the trick and avoid this ?
> >
> > paul
> >
> > Le 20 sept. 04, à 01:37, Hans Gilde a écrit :
> >
> >
> > > Maybe the public API task should also be put off for 1.1. It seems to
> > > me that any of the suggestions would result in somewhat significant
> > > API changes. We could make it clear in the 1.0 release that the Java
> > > API will change but the Tag libs form a stable XML API.
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Hans Gilde <hg...@earthlink.net>.
Actually, Embedded is a great example: wouldn't we want to move it out of
the impl package? Thus breaking all code that uses it. It's these kinds of
changes that I'd be worried about.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Gilde [mailto:hgilde-commons@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:16 PM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'; 'Dion Gillard'
Subject: RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
I do allot of extending of Jelly and Embedded is good for embedding the part
about running a script.
I'm more afraid that the public API changes will break existing TagLibs.
It's a matter of releasing 1.0 and breaking existing TagLibs vs. risking
people developing lots more TagLibs that would be broken later.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:dion.gillard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:42 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:32:04 +0200, Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>
wrote:
> Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
> wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
> Maybe a much more moderate proposal than jelly-api.jar, e.g., one or
> two classes that encompass most common usages and are recommended
> officially would do the trick and avoid this ?
>
> paul
>
> Le 20 sept. 04, à 01:37, Hans Gilde a écrit :
>
>
> > Maybe the public API task should also be put off for 1.1. It seems to
> > me that any of the suggestions would result in somewhat significant
> > API changes. We could make it clear in the 1.0 release that the Java
> > API will change but the Tag libs form a stable XML API.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Hans Gilde <hg...@earthlink.net>.
I do allot of extending of Jelly and Embedded is good for embedding the part
about running a script.
I'm more afraid that the public API changes will break existing TagLibs.
It's a matter of releasing 1.0 and breaking existing TagLibs vs. risking
people developing lots more TagLibs that would be broken later.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:dion.gillard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 6:42 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:32:04 +0200, Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>
wrote:
> Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
> wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
> Maybe a much more moderate proposal than jelly-api.jar, e.g., one or
> two classes that encompass most common usages and are recommended
> officially would do the trick and avoid this ?
>
> paul
>
> Le 20 sept. 04, à 01:37, Hans Gilde a écrit :
>
>
> > Maybe the public API task should also be put off for 1.1. It seems to
> > me that any of the suggestions would result in somewhat significant
> > API changes. We could make it clear in the 1.0 release that the Java
> > API will change but the Tag libs form a stable XML API.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>.
That's a good point... except that's nowhere in the docs except in the
javadoc.
Maybe add a paragraph in the page "Details" (which sadly carries an
"overview" section title) ?
paul
Le 20 sept. 04, à 13:42, Dion Gillard a écrit :
> I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com>.
I thought that was what Embedded was for. Simple embedding of jelly...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:32:04 +0200, Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org> wrote:
> Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
> wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
> Maybe a much more moderate proposal than jelly-api.jar, e.g., one or
> two classes that encompass most common usages and are recommended
> officially would do the trick and avoid this ?
>
> paul
>
> Le 20 sept. 04, à 01:37, Hans Gilde a écrit :
>
>
> > Maybe the public API task should also be put off for 1.1. It seems to
> > me that any of the suggestions would result in somewhat significant
> > API changes. We could make it clear in the 1.0 release that the Java
> > API will change but the Tag libs form a stable XML API.
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>.
Trouble with this is that developers may start binding into, possibly
wrong, entry-points to embed jelly that may go away in 1.1.
Maybe a much more moderate proposal than jelly-api.jar, e.g., one or
two classes that encompass most common usages and are recommended
officially would do the trick and avoid this ?
paul
Le 20 sept. 04, à 01:37, Hans Gilde a écrit :
> Maybe the public API task should also be put off for 1.1. It seems to
> me that any of the suggestions would result in somewhat significant
> API changes. We could make it clear in the 1.0 release that the Java
> API will change but the Tag libs form a stable XML API.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Jelly and a 1.0 release
Posted by Hans Gilde <hg...@earthlink.net>.
Maybe the public API task should also be put off for 1.1. It seems to me
that any of the suggestions would result in somewhat significant API
changes. We could make it clear in the 1.0 release that the Java API will
change but the Tag libs form a stable XML API.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dion Gillard [mailto:dion.gillard@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 1:02 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List; Jakarta Commons Users List
Subject: Jelly and a 1.0 release
There's currently one issue in Jira for Jelly Core against v1.0, which
is the public API.
If there is anything people want fixed for 1.0, please enter it into JIRA
ASAP.
Please note that the taglibs are now able to be released separately
from Jelly Core, so fixing those is a separate thing to getting the
core released.
Our focus at the moment is to fix bugs, do documentation and make a
stable Jelly release. Major re-work and API changes should wait till
the 1.1 timeframe.
The plan is to release 1.0 soon, and not wait a long time like the
beta-3 to beta-4 timeframe.
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org