commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:46:23 GMT
On Feb 6, 2008 1:44 PM, Simon Kitching <simon.kitching@chello.at> wrote:
> ---- Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> schrieb:
> > Deprecation is useful when a method has been
> > implemented incorrectly, and we want to push users
> > to a replacement, or for similar issues. Removing deprecated
> > classes/methods should be considered in a major version change,
> > but even there we should question what the gain is. Having a
> > 'nice and clean' no deprecations API release isn't sufficient a
> > reason. We must always put the convenience of our users ahead of
> > our natural refactoring and coding instincts.
>
> +1
>
> If a deprecated method is blocking significant improvement of the product, then ok remove
it. But just to "clean up" is not really a good enough excuse.

I don't mind the deprecations staying for IO 2.x - just thought that
if there was going to be a package rename for JDK 1.5, then may as
well clean up the deprecations as well. If, because of generic erasure
IO 2.x isn't incompatible (except for the requirement for a higher JDK
version) then how about retaining the current package name?

Niall

> > The problem is that there is no practical solution to a jar
> > hell situation. Thus, it is our absolute responsibility to
> > do everything in our power to avoid us being the cause of it.
>
> Over the last two weeks I've been working on embedding jspwiki into a locally developed
application. Now jspwiki is compiled against Lucene 1.4.3, but the app already uses Lucene
2.3.0. And yep, they are incompatible (slightly, but enough).
>
> Fortunately jspwiki's search functionality is "pluggable" so by rewriting one jspwiki
class I could make things work. But if the problem library had been more deeply embedded into
the two systems I don't know what I could possibly have done.
>
> Of course if the new release was org.apache.lucene2, then there would be no problem.
>
> Compatibility is important.
>
> Regards, Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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