Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-ID: <404C6A80.2020107@imapmail.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 12:43:44 +0000
From: Rob Oxspring <roxspring@imapmail.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [cli] v1 & v2 API compatibility
References: <404BA9D2.10705@integralsource.com>
In-Reply-To: <404BA9D2.10705@integralsource.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

John Keyes wrote:
> I spent today looking at realizing the v1 API with the v2 runtime.
> After making some progress, I started to wonder was there any compeling
> reason to do so.

Nothing compelling - just ease of adoption.  Still haven't looked into 
it in detail but an alternative to reimplementing the v1 api would be to 
simply deprecate the package and provide an adapter or two - that way 
people could perform the upgrade more gentley:

   gBuilder.withOption(Cli1Adapter.adaptOption(cli1Option));

or

   parser.setGroup(Cli1Adapter.adaptOptions(cli1Options));
   parser.parse(args);

Not sure its worth the effort though - we don't want to support the old 
codebase longer than necessary.

> 
> Therefore, I propose to branch the v1 code and put it into maintanence
> mode.  This will allow us to merge the v2 branch to the mainline
> (assuming it gets approval). I don't see this as being much of an
> overhead but I would like to hear what others think before putting this
> to a vote.  I assume a decision of this nature requires a vote as it is
> almost like proposing a new subproject.

The overhead seems perfectly reasonable for a new major version - most 
people accept api breakages for major versions anyway.

> 
> This would also allow us to keep the org.apache.commons.cli package for
> both versions.
> 
> Comments?

We should probably queue up a review of the copyright statements in the 
licence header if we merge back to the old package - I'm pretty sure the 
rewrite versions all have 2003-2004 or 2004 but merging back might mean 
that some of them should probably classed as edits of older documents 
(hence start with older dates).  Dunno though - IANAL etc etc.

Rob

> 
> -John K
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org