On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:30:21 +0100, Oliver Heger wrote:
Am 24.01.2018 um 14:29 schrieb Gilles:
Ping?
More opinions, please (to avoid rehashing the issue at
vote time).
Thanks,
Gilles
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 22:14:03 +0100, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:49:44 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
Hi All,
There are some many ways this can create jar hell now and in the
future
that I would not want to risk it. Binary compatibility is
something we
should strive for IMO. If this change is _that_ important, then
it's 2.0
time. Otherwise, don't break application stacks. Especially since
Commons
components tend to live at the bottom of such stacks. I see plenty
of
stacks out there for example, that include _both_ [lang] and
[lang3],
and
that is _fine_.
The point is that no correct application can be broken by this
change.
Rather the contrary, with the prospective v1.1, failure will happen
at compile time (for incorrect application code that would have
tried
to call base class methods), while v1.0 will happily compile (and
then
raise a NPE).
Furthermore, in both cases, correct usage (i.e. calling the
"sample"
method) will work the same, and as expected; no JAR hell
whatsoever.
The incompatible change is actually an improvement from a
application
developer's POV.
A Clirr violation would be fine with me if it is addressed in the
release notes,
Added in "changes.xml".
and the probability of creating a jar hell scenario is
rather low.
I'd think it is zero.
But no problem in reverting the change if someone comes
up with a scenario.
Thanks,
Gilles
Oliver
Gilles
Gary
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
Hi.
Please have a look at this issue on JIRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-46
and confirm that a release won't be blocked by the
current "clirr" report.
Thanks,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
