You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shale.apache.org by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> on 2007/05/18 07:17:29 UTC
Re: MyFaces is looking to use the ConfigParser() in 1.1.0 Is their an estimate on the release of 1.1.0?
On 5/17/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
> The MyFaces team is looking to use the ConfigParser() which was added in
> version 1.1.0. Is their an estimate on the release of 1.1.0?
A 1.1 release is very unlikely during May (I'm in my second week of
three conferences in a row), but more likely in June when I'll have
some time to catch up on the outstanding bug reports -- personally,
I'm happy enough with the new features we've implemented to have bugs
be the only important blocker at this point. On the other hand, you
could probably make a case that a *test* dependency is not quite so
critical as a runtime dependency would be. And, we're certainly not
interested in destabilizing changes in these APIs, since it would mess
up all of our tests as well.
Craig
>
>
> Paul Spencer
>
>
>
Re: MyFaces is looking to use the ConfigParser() in 1.1.0 Is their
an estimate on the release of 1.1.0?
Posted by Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org>.
Craig,
Thanks for the quick reply. I agree with you statement about test
dependencies not being as critical as a runtime dependency. As to
the time frame, June is fine.
FYI: So far the ConfigParser is working well :)
Paul Spencer
Craig McClanahan wrote:
> On 5/17/07, Paul Spencer <pa...@apache.org> wrote:
>> The MyFaces team is looking to use the ConfigParser() which was added in
>> version 1.1.0. Is their an estimate on the release of 1.1.0?
>
> A 1.1 release is very unlikely during May (I'm in my second week of
> three conferences in a row), but more likely in June when I'll have
> some time to catch up on the outstanding bug reports -- personally,
> I'm happy enough with the new features we've implemented to have bugs
> be the only important blocker at this point. On the other hand, you
> could probably make a case that a *test* dependency is not quite so
> critical as a runtime dependency would be. And, we're certainly not
> interested in destabilizing changes in these APIs, since it would mess
> up all of our tests as well.
>
> Craig
>
>>
>>
>> Paul Spencer
>>
>>
>>
>