You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> on 2010/11/11 21:00:26 UTC
CXF-3056 Aegis MTOM stuff.....
Benson,
In your opinion, should CXF-3056 be merged to 2.3.1 or not? You mention
it's not exactly compatible so I'm guessing not, but I'd like to make sure.
If not, we'll need to start the 2.4 migration guide and add the note about it.
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Re: CXF-3056 Aegis MTOM stuff.....
Posted by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>.
On Thursday 11 November 2010 4:49:46 pm Benson Margulies wrote:
> Dan,
>
> I can't believe that anyone is using it the way I wrote it, and I
> consider the old behavior pretty seriously broken. So, I'd like to
> take the position that 2.3.1 is mopping up some 2.3.0 leftovers, and
> go ahead and push it out. If someone complains, I'll add compatibility
> control code for 2.3.2. Lunch is on me if anyone notices.
OK. Done. :-)
Dan
>
> --benson
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Benson,
> >
> > In your opinion, should CXF-3056 be merged to 2.3.1 or not? You
> > mention it's not exactly compatible so I'm guessing not, but I'd like to
> > make sure.
> >
> > If not, we'll need to start the 2.4 migration guide and add the note
> > about it.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://dankulp.com/blog
--
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog
Re: CXF-3056 Aegis MTOM stuff.....
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
Dan,
I can't believe that anyone is using it the way I wrote it, and I
consider the old behavior pretty seriously broken. So, I'd like to
take the position that 2.3.1 is mopping up some 2.3.0 leftovers, and
go ahead and push it out. If someone complains, I'll add compatibility
control code for 2.3.2. Lunch is on me if anyone notices.
--benson
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Benson,
>
> In your opinion, should CXF-3056 be merged to 2.3.1 or not? You mention
> it's not exactly compatible so I'm guessing not, but I'd like to make sure.
>
> If not, we'll need to start the 2.4 migration guide and add the note about it.
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
>