On Feb 9, 2008 8:01 AM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:40 PM > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5 > > > > On Feb 8, 2008 4:32 PM, Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 8:24 AM > > > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > > > Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5 > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 2008 5:24 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 2/8/08, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Why I should need the find/replace in the first place? A find/replace > > > > won't help with any fundamental API incompatibilities that would > > > > trigger the creation of SomeClass2. > > > > > > > > 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. This gives us the freedom to use all Java 5 features in io2 > > while > > keeping the API or most of it the same. So if you are using io2, you must > > use Java > > 5. If you have a 3rd party library that depends on io (v1.x), then you need > > the io > > package around too. > > > > But why does changing to use generics make it incompatible - since > > java erases generics? > > > > So far I believe all the JDK 1.5 changes I've done (including > > generics) are backward compatible - clirr thinks so except when I > > changed the LineIterator next() method to return a String rather than > > Object - but I think thats an error on clirrs part. > > Since it looks like we are keeping [] parameters instead of replacing them > with List<T> that might work out. > > I say we complete the conversion to generics and see where that leaves us. I > have some generics pending commits that I'll push out in that dept.
OK sounds good. Niall > Gary > > > > > Niall > > > > > So, in short, you need all of io v2 in io2 and all of io v1 in io. This > > > allows for an > > application to depend on both and allows io2 to use all of Java 5 > > internally and in > > presenting its external API. > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > Jukka Zitting --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
