Daniel F. Savarese wrote: > > I guess I had more to say, or rather ask. > > In message <banlktikf9igkczwrardw_yb50wud9x4...@mail.gmail.com>, sebb > writes: >>really necessary, because of the additional work that it causes all >>downstream users. > > What additional work? As far as I know, end users--as in people who don't > write code--don't download new versions of Commons Net jars and plug them > into the applications that they use. They don't even know the > applications > they use depend on Commons Net. Developers of the applications they use > update the jars when they release a new version of their software and > deliver it to their users. Developers are our downstream users and they > compile their code before releasing it. So as long as we remain > compile-time compatible, there's no problem. What am I missing? That's > not a rhetorical question.
An application that depends on two components that themselves require two (binary incompatible) commons net versions. > I must be missing some use case you have in mind, such as something > analogous to a Linux distribution updating /usr/lib/libstdc++.so or some > other shared library and breaking all dynamically linked user-compiled > binaries dependent on it. The only Java examples of that I can think of > are the result of lack of care in deploying applications (where you > end up pulling jars into your CLASSPATH that you don't intend). You can no longer care in the situation above, it simply does not work. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
