commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <Joerg.Schai...@Elsag-Solutions.com>
Subject RE: [configuration] JDK compatibility
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:30:25 GMT
Hi Oliver,

[snip]

Oliver Heger wrote:
> This is pretty much the reaction I was hoping for :-)
> 
> 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.

> 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

- 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

??

- Jörg

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


Mime
View raw message