- Original Message -
From: "Niall Pemberton"
To: "Commons Developers List"
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] [math] top-level package name
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, May 21,
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>>>
>>>
So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
[math] from org.apache.commons.m
> > Of course, our way here is to come to agreement and it looks like we have
> > not done that in this case. My original vote (+1) was partly for
> > consistency with the rest of commons and out of fear of "jar hell"
> > scenarios. I was swayed by Niall's argument and reflection on use cases
> >
James Carman a écrit :
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Of course, our way here is to come to agreement and it looks like we have
>> not done that in this case. My original vote (+1) was partly for
>> consistency with the rest of commons and out of fear of "jar hell"
>> s
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Of course, our way here is to come to agreement and it looks like we have
> not done that in this case. My original vote (+1) was partly for
> consistency with the rest of commons and out of fear of "jar hell"
> scenarios. I was swayed by Ni
Henri Yandell wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
[math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
[] +1 change the top level package name
[] 0 I don
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
>
>> So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
>> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>>
>> [] +1 change the top level package name
>> [] 0 I don't care
>> [] -1
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>
> [] +1 change the top level package name
> [] 0 I don't care
> [] -1 keep the old name
>
> Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday Ma
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>
> [] +1 change the top level package name
> [] 0 I don't care
> [] -1 keep the old name
>
> Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday Ma
Jörg Schaible a écrit :
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>>> -1
>>>
>>> IMO breaking compatibility should be decided on a case-by-case basis
>>> for components. For the widely used variety such as lang, logging,
>>> collections etc then I agree lets avoid jar-hell and not do it. Bu
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Guys, you know what you do? Actually it was already reported to the list
> that some projects already faced the incompatibility problem even with
> math. With you veto you simply tell them "it's your problem, but we don't
> have a solution fo
Phil Steitz wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> -1
>>
>> IMO breaking compatibility should be decided on a case-by-case basis
>> for components. For the widely used variety such as lang, logging,
>> collections etc then I agree lets avoid jar-hell and not do it. But
>> for other components that are
Niall Pemberton wrote:
-1
IMO breaking compatibility should be decided on a case-by-case basis
for components. For the widely used variety such as lang, logging,
collections etc then I agree lets avoid jar-hell and not do it. But
for other components that are not so widely used then such as Math
-1
IMO breaking compatibility should be decided on a case-by-case basis
for components. For the widely used variety such as lang, logging,
collections etc then I agree lets avoid jar-hell and not do it. But
for other components that are not so widely used then such as Math I
think its better to mi
On 20/05/2009, Cyril Briquet wrote:
> >
> > >> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
> > >>
> > >> [] +1 change the top level package name
> > >> [] 0 I don't care
> > >> [] -1 keep the old name
> > >>
> > >> Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday May 19th 20h00 UT
>
> >> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
> >>
> >> [] +1 change the top level package name
> >> [] 0 I don't care
> >> [] -1 keep the old name
> >>
> >> Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday May 19th 20h00 UTC)
> >>
> >
> > Suggestion:
> > * keep as many package names
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Cyril Briquet
wrote:
>>
>> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>>
>> [] +1 change the top level package name
>> [] 0 I don't care
>> [] -1 keep the old name
>>
>> Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday May 19th 20h00 UTC)
>>
>
> Suggest
>
> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>
> [] +1 change the top level package name
> [] 0 I don't care
> [] -1 keep the old name
>
> Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday May 19th 20h00 UTC)
>
Suggestion:
* keep as many package names as possible (i.e. org.apache.commo
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Jin Mingjian wrote:
> the top level package renaming seem rare in the current big java project.
> Binding the version to the package name is not a common strategy as well.
>
Yes and that's why we have "jar hell" situations
---
- "Jörg Schaible" a écrit :
> Luc Maisonobe wrote at Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 22:06:
>
> [snip]
>
> > So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name
> on
> > [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
> >
> > [] +1 change the top level package name
Hi,
So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
[math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
[] +1 change the top level package name
[] 0 I don't care
[] -1 keep the old name
Having read all the arguments in favor of math2 and despite still being
Luc Maisonobe wrote at Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 22:06:
[snip]
> So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>
> [] +1 change the top level package name
> [] 0 I don't care
> [] -1 keep the old name
>
> V
+1 (non-binding)
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:59 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> That said - +1. Change the top level package name and groupId to math2.
>>
>> I'll be voting for Lang to be lang3. The only sane thing for us to do
>> until OSGi is th
+1
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
[math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
[] +1 change the top level package name
[] 0 I don't care
[] -1 keep the old name
Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday May 19th 20h00 U
the top level package renaming seem rare in the current big java project.
Binding the version to the package name is not a common strategy as well.
- Original Message -
From: "Luc Maisonobe"
To: "Commons Developers List"
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:06 PM
Subject: [VOTE] [math] top-level package name
So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
[math] from o
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> That said - +1. Change the top level package name and groupId to math2.
>
> I'll be voting for Lang to be lang3. The only sane thing for us to do
> until OSGi is the standard is to put the major version number in the
> package name. This is n
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Henri Yandell a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:53 AM, wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes
>>> that have been done on [math] for the last months belong to the major
>>>
Craig L Russell a écrit :
> Sorry for excerpting.
>
> On May 19, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>
>> With different packages names, the situation is simpler to handle: you
>> can have both libraries (in any order) in your classpath without
>> problems. You can have both 1.2 even hidden de
On 19/05/2009, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> On May 19, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
>
> > What about changing the package name to avoid jar hell?
> >
>
> I don't think there's jar hell.
>
> If users want to use 1.2, they do. If they want to upgrade to new features
> in 2.0, th
Sorry for excerpting.
On May 19, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
With different packages names, the situation is simpler to handle: you
can have both libraries (in any order) in your classpath without
problems. You can have both 1.2 even hidden deep inside another jumbo
package and 2.0 w
Hi Ted,
On May 19, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
What about changing the package name to avoid jar hell?
I don't think there's jar hell.
If users want to use 1.2, they do. If they want to upgrade to new
features in 2.0, they have to also accommodate the incompatible
changes in oth
But of course, with an incompatible change, much more than package name
needs to change!
I don't mind changing package name ... it goes very quickly with a good IDE.
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> > What is the policy in the other Apache projects?
>
> It depends. Some ar
Dimitri Pourbaix a écrit :
> Ted,
>
>> +0. Possibly changing to +1 as I think about it more.
>>
>> Dimitry,
>>
>> Is there an argument that you could see would change your mind? What
>> specifically causes your -1? Convenience? Elegance?
>
> Well, for me, the release number is not part of the
What about changing the package name to avoid jar hell?
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> What is the policy in the other Apache projects?
>>
>
> In OpenJPA, the policy is to make compatibility-breaking changes in a major
> release. So if you have a change to a signature o
On May 19, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Dimitri Pourbaix wrote:
Ted,
+0. Possibly changing to +1 as I think about it more.
Dimitry,
Is there an argument that you could see would change your mind? What
specifically causes your -1? Convenience? Elegance?
Well, for me, the release number is not par
He also wants to avoid jar hell. I have been there and sympathize with the
goal.
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Dimitri Pourbaix
wrote:
> Luc wants to add the "2" just to
> warn the users about the lack of backward compatibility.
>
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>> So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
>> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>>
>> [] +1 change the top level package name
>> [] 0 I don't care
>> [] -1 keep the old name
>>
>
> -1
> But I don't know whether
Ted,
+0. Possibly changing to +1 as I think about it more.
Dimitry,
Is there an argument that you could see would change your mind? What
specifically causes your -1? Convenience? Elegance?
Well, for me, the release number is not part of the name of a package
(of anything in general) even
+0. Possibly changing to +1 as I think about it more.
Dimitry,
Is there an argument that you could see would change your mind? What
specifically causes your -1? Convenience? Elegance?
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Dimitri Pourbaix
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So let's vote on this proposal: change
> So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
> [math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
>
> [] +1 change the top level package name
> [] 0 I don't care
> [] -1 keep the old name
>
-1
But I don't know whether I'm allowed to vote... :-}
Best rega
Hi,
So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
[math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
[] +1 change the top level package name
[] 0 I don't care
[] -1 keep the old name
-1
Regards,
Dim.
-
Luc Maisonobe a écrit :
> Henri Yandell a écrit :
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:53 AM, wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes
>>> that have been done on [math] for the last months belong to the major
>>> changes with large incompatibil
Henri Yandell a écrit :
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:53 AM, wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Considering the ongoing discussion in another thread, the current changes
>> that have been done on [math] for the last months belong to the major
>> changes with large incompatibilities with previous versions. We
44 matches
Mail list logo
