Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: Gary Gregory <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com>
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:07:29 -0500
Subject: RE: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
Thread-Topic: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
Thread-Index: AchqWYusvNdUjgLtT66A+WM1oEgP6AAExffQ
Message-ID: 
 <94C476C03BFF5E42AC3518FDAC9643C43C7DA5CEC7@HQMAIL.rocketsoftware.com>
References: <55afdc850802042047u29b4507fg2f26e3f355c2205e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <55afdc850802060351i646061caq19bb63ac3693059c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0802080533x74582a44s1234d7cdffcb4ee9@mail.gmail.com>
 <f2e8eedf0802080549n15b65097ib1d70df3d8518644@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f2e8eedf0802080549n15b65097ib1d70df3d8518644@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

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> wro=
te:
> > > 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