Matt, good idea to revive this. Commons needs to come to grips with JDK5. It reaches its EOSL on 10/30/2009 and our libraries don't even support it yet! We need to come up with an approach to this package renaming issue and just move forward.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Resurrecting this thread from 3.5 months ago as my > itch is returning: > > --- Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Henri Yandell >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:05 AM, sebb >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > I think we need to make a final decision on this. >> > >> > There seems little argument against moving to 1.5 >> in theory. And no >> > one is concerned with using 1.5 features in new >> development. The one >> > open question is: "Should we rename the package"? >> > >> > * If we goto 1.5, we have to remove the enum >> package. It's been >> > deprecated for a good while and a source code fix >> is very easy. Any >> > client that is 1.5 based has had to remove it >> already. >> > >> > * We have a handful of other deprecated methods >> that we've said will >> > be removed in 3.0. We've removed methods in the >> past (I'm pretty sure >> > we did that for 2.0). >> > >> > I'm 50/50 right now. On the one hand, yes I think >> we should remove >> > things and it's not a major version problem. If >> people are having pain >> > it would be very easy to build a separate jar with >> the deprecated >> > methods. However.... if we are going to start >> writing new generics >> > code etc, it is going to be impossible to manage >> to keep that separate >> > from the existing code. How will people know what >> to code where? >> > >> > In which case I think we should just dive right >> into LangTwo now. svn >> > cp the trunk to a branch for maintenance, and >> release of the current >> > bugfixes if we ever need to, and start a new >> LangTwo on the current >> > trunk. >> >> *If* lang2 breaks compatibility, then IMO we should >> use a new package >> name, but moving to JDK 1.5 minimum doesn't >> necessarily dictate that >> (assuming that we release a compatibility jar for >> the enum package >> which has to be removed). IMO it would be better to >> go through putting >> in the JDK 1.5 features that don't break >> compatibility and building up >> a list of possible changes that do. Then we make the >> decision on >> whether compatibility-breaking features seem worth >> it. If it is, then >> lets go all the way, remove deprecations, change the >> package name and >> put them in. If not, then lets leave the package >> name and >> deprecations. We've had a similar discussion over >> Commons IO and IMO >> so far nothing has come up that seems worth the >> whole sale package >> name change - so I think making the decision first, >> without any JDK >> 1.5+ features on the table for consideration is a >> mistake. > > Let's see, adding generics shouldn't break > compatibility; would varargs? Beyond that anything > _added_ doesn't break compatibility because we're > talking about existing code with drop-in jar > replacement, right? Have I correctly outlined the > differences between breaking and non-breaking changes > in this context? If so, I'd like to go ahead and > start with the plan. More likely I've missed > something; let's flush it out. > > -Matt > >> >> Niall >> >> > Gump btw is going to go mad :) It'll think we're >> breaking compatibility. >> > >> > Hen >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
