We have 2 choices IMO: document breaks or change package name. The later is
safer from a jar hell POV.
The question is how likely are the changes going to break BC IRL? There are
two main use cases: user like call sites and implementors of providers.
Thoughts?
Gary
It looks like there are about 7 areas in core/ where compatibility against
2.0 has been broken:
* Methods added to o.a.c.v.{FileContent,FileName,FileObject}
* Method added to o.a.c.v.RandomAccessContent
* Parameters changed on method(s) in
o.a.c.v.p.{b.Bzip2FileObject,g.GzipFileObject}
* Changes from TarEntry to TarArchiveEntry
* Removed AUTHENTICATOR_TYPES from o.a.c.v.p.w.WebdavFileProvider
Where do you define what are acceptable changes in a release? Is this going
to be a sticking-point?
http://home.apache.org/~elserj/commons-vfs/commons-vfs-2.1-site/
- Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
