From commons-dev-return-27278-qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev=nagoya.apache.org@jakarta.apache.org Thu Apr 03 18:13:09 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 37676 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 18:13:08 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 18:13:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 28080 invoked by uid 97); 3 Apr 2003 18:15:00 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@nagoya.betaversion.org Received: (qmail 28073 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 18:14:59 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by nagoya.betaversion.org with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 18:14:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 37419 invoked by uid 500); 3 Apr 2003 18:13:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 37405 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2003 18:13:05 -0000 Received: from umbongo.flamefew.net (64.253.103.114) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Apr 2003 18:13:05 -0000 Received: by umbongo.flamefew.net (Postfix on Linux (i386), from userid 500) id 692C63A2482; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:13:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by umbongo.flamefew.net (Postfix on Linux (i386)) with ESMTP id 68119296E95; Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:13:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 13:13:07 -0500 (EST) From: Henri Yandell X-X-Sender: To: Jakarta Commons Developers List , Subject: Re: import * vs explicit debate In-Reply-To: <20030403094926.F30519@stinky.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Alex Chaffee / Purple Technology wrote: > But the Maven/Gump procedure is messing with that scenario a bit. Are > you saying that it promotes *automatic* updates of all clients when a > library is updated? In that world, Alphonse does not exist; he is > replaced by a script (or just an automatic Ant-based web download). Yep. One aspect of Maven [it's optional] is that all our projects build at midnight, a SNAPSHOT version is created and anyone who builds a project the next day is likely to get that new version [assuming they're working on something which has declared itself to use the SNAPSHOT]. I think it's probably better to be doing lots and lots of micro-versions, but that seems to cost a lot in terms of upgrading the version each module depends upon. The SNAPSHOT methodology is easier to work with and makes it break earlier rather than later. I imagine there's probably some big academic philosophical argument out there somewhere about whether breaking earlier is better or worse than breaking later. > This scenario is a little troubling, since it introduces the > possibility of semantic changes as well as syntactic ones. This > transcends the import issue. If this is so, is there a rationale for > it somewhere I can read up on? > > Note that I actually think this procedure is great, and can accelerate > development, as long as everyone involved understands the risks. Yeah, pretty much my view. Day to day is great, but every now and then the development-train crashes and we have to unravel pecularities. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org