I can feel your pain. Thank god I'm using OSGi and can declare my
dependencies explicitly :-)
I'm also +1 for changing the package name because one can not assume
that everybody is using Felix, Equinox or other OSGi-Envs.
Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
James Carman schrieb:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a JIRA item for using generics, and another
for varargs. Additionally it'd probably be nice to
use generics-level reflection in the oacl.reflect
package. Thoughts on [lang] 3.0 moving to Java 5
source level?
+1, but I think we need to consider changing the package names (I know
you folks are sick of me saying that) if the API is going to change
that drastically.
+1 on generics
+99 on package-name change.
The ASM project (org.objectweb.asm) changes their API significantly with
major releases, but do not change the package name. And it causes major
pain. For example, the following libs all require specific versions of ASM:
* hibernate
* drools
* spring AOP (via cglib)
* groovy
I've got an app that uses all of the above, and it was very difficult to
get it working. The only thing that saved me is that the groovy and
cglib projects provide variants that repackage ASM internally (renaming
the package). Even with that, I'm still stuck on asm 2.2.3 for my code
when I'd rather be using 3.1.x, just because I cannot use 3.1.x without
breaking one of the other libs I need.
So if a new project release is not backwards-compatible, please change
the package name.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
