commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <GGreg...@seagullsoftware.com>
Subject RE: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:09:15 GMT
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:52 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
>
> On Feb 5, 2008 5:49 PM, Gary Gregory <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
> > Should we come up with a general package naming convention for all commons
> projects and Java 5?
> >
> > Either:
> >
> > org.apache.commons.io2
> > org.apache.commons.lang2
> > org.apache.commons.[project]2
> >
> > Or:
> >
> > org.apache.commons2.io
> > org.apache.commons2.lang
> > org.apache.commons2.[project]
> >
> > Where the minimum requirement will be Java 5, or perhaps:
> >
> > org.apache.commons5.io
> > org.apache.commons5.lang
> > org.apache.commons5.[project]
> >
> > ?
>
> I think the packages shoud stay "org.apache.commons" - how about using
> "v" as the qualifier - roman numeral for five - so
>
> org.apache.commons.iov
> org.apache.commons.langv
> org.apache.commons.[project]v
>
> Niall

A long time ago, in that other galaxy, I worked on a product called 'Smalltalk/V', and guess
what some people called it? 'Smalltalk Five', where in fact the 'V' stood for Virtual. So
I know folks are going to ask what /is/ the difference is between 'lang' and 'lang vee' ;-)
Since it is not called 'Java V (roman numeral)', we should not, IMO, have Project V, so if
we do want to put a suffix, I'd say a number would be better that a letter.

Gary

>
> > Thank you,
> > Gary
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:47 PM
> > > To: Commons Developers List
> > > Subject: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
> > >
> > > We've discussed moving to a minimum of JDK 1.5 for IO 2.0 previously -
> > > theres also an JIRA report here:
> > >    http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IO-140
> > >
> > > From memory the preference was to move to a new package name  - how
> > > about "org.apache.commons.io2"?
> > >
> > > Are there any objections to me creating an IO 1.4 branch from the
> > > current trunk and then starting work on IO 2.0 in the trunk.
> > >
> > > Initial plans would be:
> > >
> > >  - rename to the new package
> > >  - remove deprecated items
> > >  - Making appropriate JDK 1.5 changes (generics, using StringBuilder
> > > and new Appendable for Writers etc).
> > >
> > > Niall
> > >
> >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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