Re: Release of Apache Taglibs

--Apple-Mail=_AB442789-8483-49D9-A677-C2DAD06776AF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

On Jan 8, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Konstantin Kolinko <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>=20
> 2015-01-08 9:42 GMT+03:00 Jeremy Boynes <[email protected]>:
>> 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?
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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=E2=80=99d 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.

=E2=80=94
Jeremy


--Apple-Mail=_AB442789-8483-49D9-A677-C2DAD06776AF
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUr2aiAAoJEKVK0I6noCM8yQQIAI9joSmbr7aFd7dy2XteGGrv
cdLbSX0kUm9jf3fkaNIYA6i3A/MjxPKz3TAmN83nqRV/bn81/ltfiPhQaRoyXVFj
603byGYZRCGiUplDb8ez7XTzHggtMW9lwMqS2EAtX+8X5OEw6N+npa8Y0LXfc+UC
aWky/UYSQ0Kqp19AWunrSUhL+KeqN4PdhJDjDXJ563pabQXoHCajw9aw5/bOoQ/G
gUol1GggdBVXd1kGRTJdW7Ap2zKYtgxj8V3UxIudwnELErmcx6Oo7gsOcI142W9Q
i7TBCzoJn7xfeC52Eajc31DEys9OA0IJ3nsWCJc3rwRVUODRxYpbmFKiZ6geEQI=
=XCUb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_AB442789-8483-49D9-A677-C2DAD06776AF--