commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig McClanahan <craig...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: AW: AW: AW: [proposal] avoiding jar version nightmares
Date Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:34:07 GMT
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:24:52 +0100, Oliver Zeigermann
<oliver.zeigermann@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Major releases, i.e. e.g. from 1.x to 2.x are there not to be backward
> compatible. Especially, I would even consider it dangerous to replace
> a 1.x version with 2.x without checks just to have a newer version.
> Semantics could have chages. Consider collections from 2. to 3. What
> was done there was perfectly alright.

Collections was indeed perfectly alright to make
backwards-incompatible changes between versions 2 and 3.  However, you
should also note that these changes were *not* universal -- for a very
large number of classes, the calling sequences *are* backwards
compatible.

Now, let's assume that Collections had implemented the "package name
includes major version" rule.  If I had restricted myself to the
(quite large) subset where there was no real change, I would have been
*incredibly* irritated at having to change package names in *my*
application's imports -- just because you gratuitously changed the
package name (and therefore made *all* APIs backward incompatible).

Craig

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


Mime
View raw message