I'd like to give Jeff and Hema my support :
first, we've chosen to start with JS1+Fusion as we had two major requirements : being JSR 168 compliant and have lots of nice features. This means that we obviously had to go with JS1+fusion (And i'm not talking about maturity). We plan to migrate in the future to JS2 but for us is the fusion alternative a perfect migration path and would be disastrous for us if fusion is deprecated. So I also give a -1 for such a deprecation ;)
second, it seems to me that fusion code is not that large and could be quite easily put back on its feet. Code changes in J2 by Ate seem to be pragmatic and well founded and it reassured me that Ate took into account that fusion exists.
finally I agree to have JS1.6.1 with JS2M2 release and JS1.6.2 with JS2final only if schedules can't match better. I mean : if JS2 is about to release final at about the same time that JS1.6, maybe could JS1.6 and JS2 be synchronised at first shot.
Fabrice
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
