commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Curdt <tcu...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:59:33 GMT
>> So I will probably follow this road. This is a good opportunity for a
>> refactoring and polishing of some interfaces and base
>> classes. Because
>> we will have major changes, changing the package name (maybe to
>> o.a.c.configuration2?) will certainly make sense.
>
> I'd go for o.a.c.configuration2 here.

same here

>> It would be good however to handle this commons-wide in a
>> consistent way.
>
> The question is: Should we start again with 1.0 for such a  
> component or do we align the number in the package with the major  
> number if we expect a completely incompatible package?
>
> Example for a version histories:
>
> - with aligned major number:
>
> o.a.c.configuration: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5
> o.a.c.configuration2: 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 4.0
> o.a.c.configuration5: 5.0, 5.1

IMO the above is more straight forward than the following...

> - with resetted number:
>
> o.a.c.configuration: 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5
> o.a.c.configuration2: 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0
> o.a.c.configuration3: 1.0, 1.1

cheers
--
Torsten

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


Mime
View raw message