commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [configuration] JDK compatibility
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:51:24 GMT
Yes, the configuration2-packaged classes should be part of the 2.x
release series.

On 12/18/07, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@apache.org> wrote:
> >> 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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message