On Feb 5, 2008 6:09 PM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:52 AM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5 > > > > On Feb 5, 2008 5:49 PM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Should we come up with a general package naming convention for all commons > > projects and Java 5? > > > > > > Either: > > > > > > org.apache.commons.io2 > > > org.apache.commons.lang2 > > > org.apache.commons.[project]2 > > > > > > Or: > > > > > > org.apache.commons2.io > > > org.apache.commons2.lang > > > org.apache.commons2.[project] > > > > > > Where the minimum requirement will be Java 5, or perhaps: > > > > > > org.apache.commons5.io > > > org.apache.commons5.lang > > > org.apache.commons5.[project] > > > > > > ? > > > > I think the packages shoud stay "org.apache.commons" - how about using > > "v" as the qualifier - roman numeral for five - so > > > > org.apache.commons.iov > > org.apache.commons.langv > > org.apache.commons.[project]v > > > > Niall > > A long time ago, in that other galaxy, I worked on a product called > 'Smalltalk/V', and guess what some people called it? 'Smalltalk Five', where > in fact the 'V' stood for Virtual. So I know folks are going to ask what /is/ > the difference is between 'lang' and 'lang vee' ;-) Since it is not called > 'Java V (roman numeral)', we should not, IMO, have Project V, so if we do > want to put a suffix, I'd say a number would be better that a letter.
OK well I'm happy with "org.apache.commons.io2" Niall > Gary > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:47 PM > > > > To: Commons Developers List > > > > Subject: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5 > > > > > > > > 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"? > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > > > Niall > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
