If we do change the package name to pool2, then I'd suggest the artifact id change too so that everything stays consistent. So, the new artifact id would be commons-pool2 rather than commons-pool.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:40 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > If you change the group id, it's probably best to go ahead and change > the package names also, in case two versions show up on the same > classpath. Maven won't know that org.apache.commons:common-pool is > the same as commons-pool:commons-pool, so it would potentially put > both on the classpath. I believe there are also binary compatibility > issues (hence the 2.0), so changing that would mean we'd want to > change it also. > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> +1 for 2.0. We should also talk about the ugliness that we should probably >> also do for 2.0: o.a.c.pool2 or somesuch. >> >> >> >> On Oct 15, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Simone Tripodi <simone.trip...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all mates, >>> is this the right time to move the pool grouId to org.apache.commons? >>> Many thanks in advance, >>> Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
