Ag, let's not have /both/ io and io2, this gets messy. Thank you, Gary
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of James Carman > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:50 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5 > > 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? It seems rather > inconsistent, but I guess it would work. Isn't that going to get > ugly with 3.x and 4.x releases adding to the mix? > > On 2/8/08, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Feb 6, 2008 1:51 PM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So the changes are pretty minimal for IO - question is are these > > > incompatible changes with generics being erased? If not then perhaps > > > we can do this without breaking anything. > > > > +1 If there are cases where we can't avoid breaking backwards > > compatibility, then let's use the name2 pattern on individual classes > > or interfaces instead of the entire o.a.c.io package. There are large > > parts of Commons IO that don't need to change when upgrading to Java 5 > > and I don't see why a client that only uses those parts should be > > affected in any way by the upgrade. > > > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
