On 19/05/2009, Craig L Russell <craig.russ...@sun.com> wrote: > Hi Ted, > > On May 19, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > > > > What about changing the package name to avoid jar hell? > > > > I don't think there's jar hell. > > If users want to use 1.2, they do. If they want to upgrade to new features > in 2.0, they have to also accommodate the incompatible changes in other > methods. > > It's not clear to me how renaming the packages improves anything. > > If you want to have a method that does something different, you can always > create a new method with a different signature and tell users to use that > method instead of the old one. > > I am probably missing your definition of jar hell... ;-)
The problem is when an application needs both jars as a result of different dependencies. Having the same class in two different jars does not work very well ;-) > Craig > > > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Craig L Russell > <craig.russ...@sun.com>wrote: > > > > > > > What is the policy in the other Apache projects? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In OpenJPA, the policy is to make compatibility-breaking changes in a > major > > > release. So if you have a change to a signature or behavior of a method > that > > > shipped in 1.2.0, you would have to make the change in a 2.0.x release. > The > > > old behavior continues in the 1.2.x line. > > > > > > > Craig L Russell > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
