commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Torsten Curdt <>
Subject Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:00:41 GMT

On 05.02.2008, at 06:44, Henri Yandell wrote:

> On Feb 4, 2008 8:47 PM, Niall Pemberton <>  
> wrote:
>> We've discussed moving to a minimum of JDK 1.5 for IO 2.0  
>> previously -
>> theres also an JIRA report here:
>> From memory the preference was to move to a new package name  - how
>> about "org.apache.commons.io2"?
> For Collections it makes sense as there's a big API change planned.
> For the others, I think they should charge in and see what kind of API
> changes are required. If we're talking small ones, then I'd prefer not
> to. I continue to not think that the next major version of a jar has
> to kill itself over backwards compatibility (ie: what's the point of a
> major version).

But that is exactly the point of a major upgrade - it might have  
incompatible changes.
Or what am I not getting here in your argumentation? :)

>> 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.
> Any need to make the branch?
> ie) Wait until you need it; as long as you have a tag of the latest
> release you can always branch from that.
>> 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).
> I'd move the new package one to 3rd rather than 1st.

I think it would much more consistent to do it across the board. If a  
users upgrades from 1.x to 2.x it should not be expected too much to  
run at least an "organize imports". And we would have less trouble  
worrying about backwards incompatibilities - clean slate.

At least that's my take on this.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message