Mark Proctor wrote: > Torsten Curdt wrote: >> >> On 21.01.2008, at 10:08, Tom Schindl wrote: >> >>> Hi Torsten, >>> >>> I understand this but we are seeing many J2EE-Servers adopting OSGi >>> and many applications (I admit most of them in Eclipse-world) also. >>> It seems strange to me in those envs to use this "artificial" >>> package to overcome jar-hell (which is the only reason for the >>> java5-package right?) they are not having >>> because of OSGi. >> >> Hm.... not sure why its such a big deal to have e.g. >> o.a.commons.lang2 or similar. If you use an IDE that manages imports >> you will barely notice anyway. > personally I've always wondered why having a version attached to the > namespace hasn't taken off more to deal with api breaking > releases. if > we had org.antlr1 org.antlr2 org.antlr3 life would be much > easier. Sure > you wouldn't get auto drop in jar and release, but I'm > guessing tooling > could make up for that in those cases.
Ironically Java could already support this, there's a reason why a manifest should specify a Specification-Version. It would have been so simple to use this information also to separate classes in a class loader. But the Gods of Java refused to make anything out of it ;-) - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
