On 2/8/08, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Feb 8, 2008 3:49 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, you are suggesting having part of a release in the o.a.c.io > > package and the other part in the o.a.c.io2? > > No. I'd keep everything in o.a.c.io. > > If there's a class or interface, say o.a.c.io.SomeClass, that needs to > be changed extensively to match "Java 5 style", then I'd name the > modified version o.a.c.io.SomeClass2 (or something better if > possible). >
I don't know about that. Then, we could potentially have classes like SomeClass, SomeClass2, SomeClass3, etc. running around. Also, it wouldn't be as easy to upgrade to a new version. If it were done the other way, folks could just do a find/replace on the package name in their code and be done. On the other hand, it does allow you to introduce new incompatible logic without requiring a new major release. Hopefully folks wouldn't abuse that. > I assume such cases to be the exception rather than the rule, so I > don't see the point in renaming the entire package. > > Java 5 is just an enabler of new features (generics, etc.), it doesn't > magically make existing APIs obsolete. Sure, you probably want to > adjust collection types, but that's just like any other API change > request. > > BR, > > Jukka Zitting > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
