On 12/06/2008, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Niall Pemberton > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Do you mean that the removal of the enums would mean that we have to > >> change package names? > >> > >> Would class/interface removals necessitate a > >> package name change? I haven't really thought that through. > > > > Perhaps not, neither had I > >
Removal of a *public* interface/method/class means that the API is not compatible, as it is not possible to replace the jar without breaking classes that use these items. If jar X depends on oldMethod() and jar Y requires newMethod() it will be difficult/impossible to combine jars X and Y in the same application. So I would say removals would need a name change. If the item is not public, then it might be possible to avoid a rename - depends on whether the item is likely to be used by external libraries. Maybe there are some methods/classes etc that are flagged as "internal" use only, in which case 3rd parties cannot complain if the APIs change. C.f. the com.sun packages. BTW, perhaps Commons should have a similar naming convention for packages that need to contain public methods, but which are only intended to be used in Commons libraries. > > I mentioned it as a conversation starter. I'm not saying it does or > doesn't. I can be somewhat shortsighted sometimes when it comes to > situations like this. :) I just hoped other folks who have maybe > encountered the situation and have a strong opinion one way or the > other would weigh in. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
