On 22 December 2014 at 22:37, Bernd Eckenfels <e...@zusammenkunft.net> wrote: > Am Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:29:34 +0000 > schrieb sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > >> But if we always use the same symbolic name, it may look as though an >> app that was built using VFS2.0 will just be able to use VFS19.2 >> without any adjustments. >> However, that may not be the case. > > Actually in OSGi a new major number means that it is not the case.
> And unlike normal Java it is perfectly fine to have two versions of a > java package with the same name and different context (thats why Yes, I know that. > renaming packages does not fit the OSGi model very well, but I guess it > is better to support normal java classloaders (by renaming). It is essential - not just better - that Commons supports standard Java classloaders. Not everyone wants/needs to use OSGi; it is overkill for many situations. > But you are right, it should not harm to stay at the same name (and > actually it is more expected), so best we keep it for 2.1 and not "fix" > it. > > Gruss > Bernd > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
