On 05.02.2008, at 06:44, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Feb 4, 2008 8:47 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
We've discussed moving to a minimum of JDK 1.5 for IO 2.0
previously -
theres also an JIRA report here:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-140
From memory the preference was to move to a new package name - how
about "org.apache.commons.io2"?
For Collections it makes sense as there's a big API change planned.
For the others, I think they should charge in and see what kind of API
changes are required. If we're talking small ones, then I'd prefer not
to. I continue to not think that the next major version of a jar has
to kill itself over backwards compatibility (ie: what's the point of a
major version).
But that is exactly the point of a major upgrade - it might have
incompatible changes.
Or what am I not getting here in your argumentation? :)
Are there any objections to me creating an IO 1.4 branch from the
current trunk and then starting work on IO 2.0 in the trunk.
Any need to make the branch?
ie) Wait until you need it; as long as you have a tag of the latest
release you can always branch from that.
Initial plans would be:
- rename to the new package
- remove deprecated items
- Making appropriate JDK 1.5 changes (generics, using StringBuilder
and new Appendable for Writers etc).
I'd move the new package one to 3rd rather than 1st.
I think it would much more consistent to do it across the board. If a
users upgrades from 1.x to 2.x it should not be expected too much to
run at least an "organize imports". And we would have less trouble
worrying about backwards incompatibilities - clean slate.
At least that's my take on this.
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
