OK. The consensus seems to keep the original package name, so this is what I will do.
Thanks to all for your comments. Luc ----- Mail Original ----- De: "Rahul Akolkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> À: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 16 Mai 2008 02:01:21 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [math] should version 2.0 be targeted to Java 5 ? On 5/15/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sebb a écrit : > > > >> However AFAICS "jar hell" could still apply to those unknown projects, > >> and needs to be avoided if at all possible. > > > > Well, the probability of jar hell with Commons Math is near zero, I would > > not annoy all the users with a package change for a very hypothetical > issue. > > When you look at the dependencies on lang [1] or collections [2] you > > understand why these components must adopt a very careful approach, but > > [math] is nowhere near this situation. > > > +1, IMO the approach chosen should be decided on a > component-by-component basis and I don't have a problem with breaking > compatibilty in a major version of Math, without changing package > names, if thats what the Math devs want to do. > <snip/> I'll third that. -Rahul > > Niall > > > > Emmanuel Bourg > > > > [1] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/commons-lang/commons-lang/2.1 > > [2] > > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/commons-collections/commons-collections/3.2 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
