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 Sat, 09 Feb 2008 20:23:50 GMT
I'm not sure we need this level of flexibility for the whole project. We should implement new
features with the full Java 5 bag of tricks and even go over current implementation and recode
with Java 5 in mind.

Gary
Gary

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fortner <phidias51@gmail.com>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Sent: Sat Feb 09 10:25:03 2008
Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to maintain a single API and
have separate implementation JARs?  Or are there plans to change method
signatures as well (such as to add generics or NIO support)?  If the method
signatures remained the same but the internal implementations were updated
it might be possible to give users a more easily pluggable update to IO.

Regards,

Mark Fortner

On Feb 8, 2008 8:07 AM, Gary Gregory <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:

> Ag, let's not have /both/ io and io2, this gets messy.
>
> Thank you,
> Gary
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcarman@carmanconsulting.com]
> > On Behalf Of James Carman
> > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:50 AM
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
> >
> > So, you are suggesting having part of a release in the o.a.c.io
> > package and the other part in the o.a.c.io2?  It seems rather
> > inconsistent, but I guess it would work.   Isn't that going to get
> > ugly with 3.x and 4.x releases adding to the mix?
> >
> > On 2/8/08, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Feb 6, 2008 1:51 PM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > So the changes are pretty minimal for IO - question is are these
> > > > incompatible changes with generics being erased? If not then perhaps
> > > > we can do this without breaking anything.
> > >
> > > +1 If there are cases where we can't avoid breaking backwards
> > > compatibility, then let's use the name2 pattern on individual classes
> > > or interfaces instead of the entire o.a.c.io package. There are large
> > > parts of Commons IO that don't need to change when upgrading to Java 5
> > > and I don't see why a client that only uses those parts should be
> > > affected in any way by the upgrade.
> > >
> > > BR,
> > >
> > > Jukka Zitting
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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
>
>


--
Mark Fortner

blog: http://www.jroller.com/phidias
Mime
View raw message