On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:09, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> That's not the issue. We want to avoid unresolvable incompatibilities in >> transitive dependencies. Our components are used by many projects, an >> incompatibility could render impossible the use of two components >> together, and you are stuck until the components are updated to use the >> same version of the common dependency. >> >> ASM and BouncyCastle are two examples of widely used projects that don't >> care at all about the compatibilities, and this is causing pain and >> wasting time to a lot of smart people. > > I think you misunderstand my intent. We have left out features before > (ones that folks blogged about and said they liked) because a user > could do something stupid with it. > > What you're talking about is "jar hell" and we have already addressed > that with our naming convention for major release bumps (changing > artifactId and package name). I'm cool with that idea and I think > it's a pretty good approach. I don't see anyone else doing it, which > is interesting. > Yep, our approach works. You cannot be kind of binary compatible, it's all or nothing. I do like the idea of internal package names like Eclipse does. This would not stop me from hacking my way in there but at least I should not be surprised if a minor version breaks internal binary compat. Gary > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
