Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 66413 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2008 16:05:29 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2008 16:05:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 11857 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2008 16:05:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 11455 invoked by uid 500); 6 Feb 2008 16:05:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 11446 invoked by uid 99); 6 Feb 2008 16:05:19 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:05:19 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [72.14.204.232] (HELO qb-out-0506.google.com) (72.14.204.232) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:04:50 +0000 Received: by qb-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c7so5081735qbc.16 for ; Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:04:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.128.1 with SMTP id f1mr11055871pyn.63.1202313894462; Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:04:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.35.76.11 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:04:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:04:54 -0500 From: "James Carman" Sender: jcarman@carmanconsulting.com To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Subject: Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1830492.1202305489591.JavaMail.root@viefep15> <55afdc850802060746o131e08b6gbb6c38de4b5aed45@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 39f6ef14b68afb52 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 2/6/08, Paul Benedict wrote: > Niall, I agree as well. I don't see a strong reason for keeping any > deprecations if the package structure is changing. It is no longer binary > compatible -- especially if you begin at version 1.0 again. Version 1.0? So, it'd be org.apache.commons.io2, but the release would be version 1.0? I don't know about that. I'd think that anything packaged in io2 packages would be released under a 2.x release number. > > Paul > > On Feb 6, 2008 9:46 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 2008 1:44 PM, Simon Kitching wrote: > > > ---- Stephen Colebourne schrieb: > > > > Deprecation is useful when a method has been > > > > implemented incorrectly, and we want to push users > > > > to a replacement, or for similar issues. Removing deprecated > > > > classes/methods should be considered in a major version change, > > > > but even there we should question what the gain is. Having a > > > > 'nice and clean' no deprecations API release isn't sufficient a > > > > reason. We must always put the convenience of our users ahead of > > > > our natural refactoring and coding instincts. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > If a deprecated method is blocking significant improvement of the > > product, then ok remove it. But just to "clean up" is not really a good > > enough excuse. > > > > I don't mind the deprecations staying for IO 2.x - just thought that > > if there was going to be a package rename for JDK 1.5, then may as > > well clean up the deprecations as well. If, because of generic erasure > > IO 2.x isn't incompatible (except for the requirement for a higher JDK > > version) then how about retaining the current package name? > > > > Niall > > > > > > The problem is that there is no practical solution to a jar > > > > hell situation. Thus, it is our absolute responsibility to > > > > do everything in our power to avoid us being the cause of it. > > > > > > Over the last two weeks I've been working on embedding jspwiki into a > > locally developed application. Now jspwiki is compiled against Lucene > > 1.4.3, but the app already uses Lucene 2.3.0. And yep, they are > > incompatible (slightly, but enough). > > > > > > Fortunately jspwiki's search functionality is "pluggable" so by > > rewriting one jspwiki class I could make things work. But if the problem > > library had been more deeply embedded into the two systems I don't know what > > I could possibly have done. > > > > > > Of course if the new release was org.apache.lucene2, then there would be > > no problem. > > > > > > Compatibility is important. > > > > > > Regards, Simon > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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