Le 24/11/2010 13:10, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > Hi Luc. > >> [...] >>>> >>>> I also noticed we now have an increasing number of users and some >>>> complex projects among them. So it may be time for us to follow the >>>> general trend proposed for commons components and switch our top level >>>> package name from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math3 >>>> for this version. This would help people have both versions in their >>>> classpath without names clashes. I'm sure James will be happy with this >>>> proposal ;-) >>> >>> If the API is incompatible, changing the package name is essential IF >>> there are likely to be multiple dependencies on Math. >> >> Yes. There is one big research project split into many components >> developed by different unsynchronized teams throughout the world. >> Commons-math is one of their dependencies. >> >> I'm pretty sure some components are already using 3.0 (well, they have >> committers here ...) and also some other teams are still stuck with 2.1. >> With different package names, it will probably help them transition at >> their own pace before everyone is in sync again (if it ever happens ...) > > Thank you for trying to help with this. > However, although the name change would be the simplest solution for the > problem I encounter right now, it should not be done lightly (i.e. only > because of that temporary situation). > > The name change is an option only if we can reasonably expect that > applications would use both "math" and "math3".
No, the sole purpose of such a change is to avoid jar hell for applications that do not use fancy loading mechanisms like OSGi. > But that would mean that we > can promise to the developers of those applications, that both "math" and > "math3" will be supported in the future. I don't think there are human > ressources to do that (and, as you pointed out, it is not a nice and easy > job). Yes. Once a release is done, we suggest people finding bug in a previous version to first check if it is still present in the last one and we fix it in this version. I am not aware of any real case for which we would have published a fix for an old version. regards, Luc > > The mentioned project is expected to use a single version of Commons-Math, > the supported one, at least until there is a code freeze. So after assessing > the impact of upgrading to 3.0, the whole project will probably probably do > so, and be in sync again. > > Hence, I think that it is best not to fork Commons-Math at this point. > > > Best regards, > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
