On Dec 8, 2011, at 6:01, "Jörg Schaible" <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote: > >> On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Gary Gregory wrote: >>> >>>> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on >>>> Java 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based versions that do >>>> break binary compatibility. >>>> >>>> We can retain the VFS name and brand for the project, but I'd prefer >>>> o.a.c.vfs<n> to be for VFS2 based work and to create o.a.c.filesystem >>>> (or fs) for Java 7 FileSystem-based work. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Until now we had the policy to add the major number to the package name >>> i.e. this is org.apache.commons.vfs3 here. >> >> As I already mentioned earlier in this thread, that may clash with >> updates to VFS 2.x that need a new package name. > > And how long do you expect that both branches are actively developed? It > took years from 1.x to 2.x. And why should someone start active development > with vfs2 if there's already vfs3 around? If I am limited to java 5 and 6. G > The same situation is now with > vfs1. Why would I select as user vfs1 now? > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
