"thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : I think we should have a consistent naming scheme (i.e. either we use the jBPM prefix or not) | good point. let's take "jPDL {version}" "thomas.diesler(a)jboss.com" wrote : Therefore I propose for jPDL4 a release cycle that aligns with jBPM3. Faster than eight weeks is very hard to manage anyway given the documentation and test coverage that is required. | the problem is that i need enough coverage in jPDL 4 to know that the basic public API starts off in the right direction. some of the advanced concepts will have their impact on the basic part of the api. i wanted to reflect with this release schedule that in my estimation, jPDL 4.0.alpha2 has enough coverage so that we can be confident that the basic parts of the api remain stable. View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4161185#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...