On Jan 8, 2015, at 9:26 PM, Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Konstantin Kolinko <knst.koli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 2015-01-08 9:42 GMT+03:00 Jeremy Boynes <jboy...@apache.org>: >>> I made a couple of minor improvements to Apache Taglibs last year related >>> to XML parsing and to how we load libraries (it now uses the TCCL which >>> means the jars can be shared between webapps as well as be included in a >>> webapp as before). I would like to perform a minor release (1.2.2) to >>> include these. Before I do, are there any other issues that should be >>> addressed? >>> >>> One change in 1.2 I think was not useful was the split of the 1.0 EL >>> evaluator into its own jar. I propose to merge that back so we end up with >>> two jars: one with the javax classes and one with our implementation. >> >> I do not see a point in merging them back. Personally, I do not use >> JSTL 1.0 EL implementation and do not plan to use it. (IIRC, the only >> occurrence when I used them was when I made a typo in tag library url, >> like copy-pasting from a wrong tld file. Hilarity ensued). >> Unexpectedly using a wrong implementation may be confusing. > > That was the kind of thing that prompted me to split it off in the first > place. > > The other was to the allow users to use a newer EL implementation (such as > the one from the container) which could have performance or efficiency > improvements over the original one, especially now EL has been decoupled from > JSTL and JSP. However, I found a problem with the -compat packaging that > would prevent that jar being used; see #57427. As no-one else had reported > that my assumption was that this was not that useful. > >> Another point is that I do not like changing release packaging in a >> point release. Is this driven by a real users' demand? Have there >> been any public complaints from real users (e.g. an issue in >> Bugzilla)? What do we do with Maven artifacts? Abandon one of them? > > As I’d not seen any feedback on the split (public or private) I was thinking > of simply reverting to the 1.1.x model. Sounds better though to fix the > problems with the -compat version and defer merging until a potential 1.3 > release.
I’ve fixed the issues with the -compat version and verified that that configuration also passes the TCK. I am going to update the release notes and start the release process. Cheers Jeremy
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
