Re: Supporting multiple APIs simultaneously

[Andrew John Hughes]

On Sat, 2004-07-03 at 16:38, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 14:10, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> > Well, my suggestion would be that the branches are more for the benefit
> > of users rather than developers.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the
> > japitools comparisons suggest that 1.1 is just about supported.  This
> > would seem to be a solid base to give to those who want something to
> > work with, at least for the time being, as a Java replacement without
> > having to wonder about holes.  As far as developers go, I would expect
> > focus to mainly stay on 1.4 as it is now, with appropriate patches that
> > also cover 1.1 being added there.  However, if you think that would be
> > too much effort, then I can see your point to an extent.  I do think
> > there is something to be said for giving users something more stable
> > though, rather than the kind of random implementation guarantees we give
> > now.
> 
> Japitools only says which APIs can be compiled against, it says nothing 
> about the spec-adherence of the implementation (the dreaded FIXMEs! ;).
> 
And so goes the other discussion... ;-)

> There are no guarantees because noone stepped up to the plate to provide 
> them. If you want to be the one, great! If you feel that you can pull 
> off making Classpath implement the remaining bits for 1.1, and closing 
> the holes, more power to you. Just keep the patches, mauve tests, and so 
> on flowing in, and everyone will be happy.
> 
I'm definitely willing to try, at least.
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
-- 
Andrew :-)
 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
 
Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history.
`Don't bother us with politics' respond those who don't want to learn.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part