commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rory Winston <rory.wins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] should version 2.0 be targeted to Java 5 ?
Date Thu, 15 May 2008 21:59:36 GMT
Just my 2c, but I think package renaming for major releases is ugly and 
unecessary.

Phil Steitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
>   
>> Phil Steitz a écrit :
>>     
>>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> James Carman a écrit :
>>>>         
>>>>> Would it be better to make it Math 2.0?  With a language level change
>>>>> like that, it should probably be a new major version.  You should also
>>>>> consider putting the stuff in org.apache.commons.math2 packages to
>>>>> avoid "jar hell" issues.
>>>>>           
>>>> And if you do so, you'll have to change the Maven identification of the
>>>> jar.
>>>> That's the right time to release Commons Math as
>>>> org.apache.commons:commons-math instead of commons-math:commons-math.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Both good points.  Lets get the maven namespace fixed in 2.0.  Thanks
>>> in advance for help making sure we don't screw that up.
>>>
>>> Regarding package renaming, there are very few backward incompatible
>>> changes lined up for 2.0, and all of the proposed 1.5-dependent stuff
>>> is new, so I am hesistant to do a wholesale change.  What would be the
>>> problem with renaming only packages that contain classes with
>>> incompatible changes?
>>>       
>> I see three problems with a mixed approach like this.
>>
>>  - it is inconsistent and therefore difficult to understand to end-users
>>  - it prevents using simple search/replace to switch from 1.x to 2.x
>>  - it doesn't help when the two jars are in classpath and a class
>>   with no incompatible change (i.e still in a .math.something
>>   package) calls a class with an incompatible change
>>     
>
> Assumiing that happens, which I guess we can't rule out, so point taken.
>
>   
>> I'm also quite reluctant to packages names change, but it is only a personal
>> taste and therefore not important. I agree this is the safer solution as it
>> handles things properly.
>>
>> Here is my proposal, summarizing what has been discussed so far in this
>> thread and adding my own bias:
>>
>>  - commons-math 2.0 will target Java 1.5 as the minimal version
>>  - the maven groupId will be changed from commons-math to
>>   org.apache.commons (the artifactID is unchanged)
>>  - all packages will be relocated under org.apache.commons.math2
>>
>> If nobody complains (mainly about the third point), I am going to perform
>> these changes in branch 2.0 on Sunday.
>>     
>
> I guess the third point gives me heartburn. Given the relatively small
> number of incompatible changes, I do not see the need to make a
> wholesale change to the package name and force all users to make
> source-level changes to upgrade.  I am +1 on fixing the maven groupID,
> though and upping the required JDK level to 1.5.
>
> Phil
>   
>> Luc
>>
>>     
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
>   


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message