sebb wrote: > On 8 December 2011 11:01, 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? > > Because AIUI VFS3 targets Java 1.7 up; it won't work on Java 1.5 or 1.6. > > I hope no-one is suggesting that VFS no longer be developed for Java > 1.6 just yet.
I did not say that, but I don't expect major refactorings and an API redesign for VFS2 if there's already a successor (and this time with an API defined by the JDK). We should be interested ourselves to stay API- compatible in the VFS2 series. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
