ANNOUNCE: Updated GCJ and SWT Article
Thu May 15 19:32:00 GMT 2003
>However, during most of the writing of the article, I was on 3.2. I did
>think about recommending 3.3 in the article, but I wouldn't have had
>enough time to test on it. It would be a real bummer if I recommended 3.3
>and then readers ended up with problems.
Readers will probably end up with way more problems with 3.2.
In my opinion,
3.2 : 3.3 === Eclipse 1.0 : Eclipse 2.0
if that gives you a good perspective.
Ranjit? Anyone else?
>Even so, if you think it is very important, I can check whether I can make
>a last-minute edit to the article.
That's your call, based on the information Ranjit and I have provided. Maybe
Erik and Ãyvind can also chime in.
This being said, let me know if you plan to do this. I can do a fresh build
with the now-frozen 3.3 sources.
More information about the Java