> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul Benedict > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:59 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5 > > Niall, I agree as well. I don't see a strong reason for keeping any > deprecations if the package structure is changing. It is no longer binary > compatible -- especially if you begin at version 1.0 again.
+1 to remove deprecations in new packages. Gary > > Paul > > On Feb 6, 2008 9:46 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 2008 1:44 PM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ---- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > > Deprecation is useful when a method has been > > > > implemented incorrectly, and we want to push users > > > > to a replacement, or for similar issues. Removing deprecated > > > > classes/methods should be considered in a major version change, > > > > but even there we should question what the gain is. Having a > > > > 'nice and clean' no deprecations API release isn't sufficient a > > > > reason. We must always put the convenience of our users ahead of > > > > our natural refactoring and coding instincts. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > If a deprecated method is blocking significant improvement of the > > product, then ok remove it. But just to "clean up" is not really a good > > enough excuse. > > > > I don't mind the deprecations staying for IO 2.x - just thought that > > if there was going to be a package rename for JDK 1.5, then may as > > well clean up the deprecations as well. If, because of generic erasure > > IO 2.x isn't incompatible (except for the requirement for a higher JDK > > version) then how about retaining the current package name? > > > > Niall > > > > > > The problem is that there is no practical solution to a jar > > > > hell situation. Thus, it is our absolute responsibility to > > > > do everything in our power to avoid us being the cause of it. > > > > > > Over the last two weeks I've been working on embedding jspwiki into a > > locally developed application. Now jspwiki is compiled against Lucene > > 1.4.3, but the app already uses Lucene 2.3.0. And yep, they are > > incompatible (slightly, but enough). > > > > > > Fortunately jspwiki's search functionality is "pluggable" so by > > rewriting one jspwiki class I could make things work. But if the problem > > library had been more deeply embedded into the two systems I don't know what > > I could possibly have done. > > > > > > Of course if the new release was org.apache.lucene2, then there would be > > no problem. > > > > > > Compatibility is important. > > > > > > Regards, Simon > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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]
