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 08:01:02 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pemberton@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:40 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
>
> On Feb 8, 2008 4:32 PM, Gary Gregory <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
> > > From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 8:24 AM
> > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > > Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Feb 8, 2008 5:24 PM, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> > > > On 2/8/08, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > If there's a class or interface, say o.a.c.io.SomeClass, that needs
to
> > > > > be changed extensively to match "Java 5 style", then I'd name the
> > > > > modified version o.a.c.io.SomeClass2 (or something better if
> > > > > possible).
> > > >
> > > > I don't know about that.  Then, we could potentially have classes like
> > > > SomeClass, SomeClass2, SomeClass3, etc. running around. Also, it
> > > > wouldn't be as easy to upgrade to a new version.  If it were done the
> > > > other way, folks could just do a find/replace on the package name in
> > > > their code and be done.
> > >
> > > Why I should need the find/replace in the first place? A find/replace
> > > won't help with any fundamental API incompatibilities that would
> > > trigger the creation of SomeClass2.
> > >
> > > You'd only need to upgrade to SomeClass2 if you actually need the new
> > > functionality, otherwise you could just keep using the old API when
> > > upgrading from 1.x to 2.x. With the o.a.c.io2 proposal everybody would
> > > need to update their code when upgrading even if no part of the API
> > > they touch has changed.
> >
> > I do not think this last paragraph is correct. The io2 package is not only free
to
> introduce generics in the API, it is also free to use Java 5 features in its internal
> implementation. This gives us the freedom to use all Java 5 features in io2 while
> keeping the API or most of it the same. So if you are using io2, you must use Java
> 5. If you have a 3rd party library that depends on io (v1.x), then you need the io
> package around too.
>
> But why does changing to use generics make it incompatible - since
> java erases generics?
>
> So far I believe all the JDK 1.5 changes I've done (including
> generics) are backward compatible - clirr thinks so except when I
> changed the LineIterator next() method to return a String rather than
> Object - but I think thats an error on clirrs part.

Since it looks like we are keeping [] parameters instead of replacing them with List<T>
that might work out.

I say we complete the conversion to generics and see where that leaves us. I have some generics
pending commits that I'll push out in that dept.

Gary

>
> Niall
>
> > So, in short, you need all of io v2 in io2 and all of io v1 in io. This allows for
an
> application to depend on both and allows io2 to use all of Java 5 internally and in
> presenting its external API.
>
> > Gary
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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


Mime
View raw message