Hi, On Feb 8, 2008 6:32 PM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You'd only need to upgrade to SomeClass2 if you actually need the new > > functionality, otherwise you could just keep using the old API when > > upgrading from 1.x to 2.x. With the o.a.c.io2 proposal everybody would > > need to update their code when upgrading even if no part of the API > > they touch has changed. > > I do not think this last paragraph is correct. The io2 package is > not only free to introduce generics in the API, it is also free to > use Java 5 features in its internal implementation.
Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't get why we couldn't use Java 5 features in the internal implementation of the current Commons IO API? If we declare Java 5 as a requirement for IO 2.x, then those Java 5 features should be available wherever you deploy the library and it shouldn't matter how the internals work as long as the public API remains backwards compatible. We can always backport fixes and new functionality that don't depend on Java 5 features to a 1.x branch that runs on earlier JVMs. There should be no problem to keep such backports upwards compatible, so that a 1.x client would remain functional when deployed with IO 2.x in a Java 5 environment. BR, Jukka Zitting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
