commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel F. Savarese" <...@savarese.org>
Subject Re: [net] JDK 1.4+ Branch?
Date Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:59:45 GMT

In message <43DBD5BF.9030902@eircom.net>, Rory Winston writes:
>I think that this might be a good point to consider introducing a 
>version of Commons-Net that uses JDK 1.4+ as a baseline. My reasoning is 

I've long advocated branching to take advantage of JDK 1.4, but I
had a more radical agenda.  I believe the underpinnings of Commons Net
need to be redesigned without being afraid to break compatibility.
My suggestion was for this new Commons Net 2.0 to be in a new package:
org.apache.commons.net2.  At the time, the incremental evolution path
was preferred.

>* We could remove the (oro) jar dependency;

I think that's a side-effect of moving to JDK 1.4, not a reason in and
of itself for JDK 1.4.  There are no benefits to java.util.regex over
oro in the context used by Commons Net.

>* It could be a good opportunity to "clean up" the threading code and 
>socket handling, and make use of NIO;

I believe that's the main reason to make the move.

>Of course, JDK-1.3-compatible releases could still continue on HEAD, or 
>we could move the 1.4+ branch to HEAD and the 1.3 code to a maintenance 
>branch.

Assuming we're talking about continuing incremental evolution, I believe
we should cut a 1.4.2 release with all the current bug fixes included
and branch from there.  JDK 1.3 would be supported in maintenance
releases based off of 1.4.2 (e.g., 1.4.3, 1.4.4, etc.) that would only
include bug fixes.  New development based on JDK 1.4 would continue
on the main trunk.  Taking the FTPS code contribution into account, I'd
change that to releasing a 1.4.2, then incorporating the FTPS code in
a 1.5 release compatible with JDK 1.3, and branching from there as
per the original scenario.  The only situation in which I'd suggest doing
it differently is if someone was really itching to write NIO or other
JDK 1.4 stuff in the near term, in which case I think we'd have to let
that happen on a separate branch until the FTPS code was incorporated
into the trunk.  Then after the 1.5 release off of the trunk, we'd merge
changes from the JDK 1.4 branch into the main trunk and only do JDK 1.3
releases off of the 1.5 tree.

daniel


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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