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]
