commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [math] should version 2.0 be targeted to Java 5 ?
Date Sun, 18 May 2008 15:09:04 GMT
Well, if there are several incompatible changes, then I would change
the package name.

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
> James Carman a écrit :
>>
>> Well then I might not make the jump to 2.0 then.  That way, if we ever
>> do make the jump to 2.0 (for API incompatibility reasons), we can
>> change the package name.
>
> There were other reasons to jump to 2.0. Several incompatibles change will
> be introduced and the features that were deprecated in 1.2 will be removed.
>
> Luc
>
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:32 AM,  <luc.maisonobe@free.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK. The consensus seems to keep the original package name, so this is
>>> what I will do.
>>>
>>> Thanks to all for your comments.
>>> Luc
>>>
>>> ----- Mail Original -----
>>> De: "Rahul Akolkar" <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com>
>>> À: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 16 Mai 2008 02:01:21 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin /
>>> Berne / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne
>>> Objet: Re: [math] should version 2.0 be targeted to Java 5 ?
>>>
>>> On 5/15/08, Niall Pemberton <niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>  > sebb a écrit :
>>>>  >
>>>>  >> However AFAICS "jar hell" could still apply to those unknown
>>>> projects,
>>>>  >> and needs to be avoided if at all possible.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Well, the probability of jar hell with Commons Math is near zero, I
>>>> would
>>>>  > not annoy all the users with a package change for a very hypothetical
>>>> issue.
>>>>  > When you look at the dependencies on lang [1] or collections [2] you
>>>>  > understand why these components must adopt a very careful approach,
>>>> but
>>>>  > [math] is nowhere near this situation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1, IMO the approach chosen should be decided on a
>>>>  component-by-component basis and I don't have a problem with breaking
>>>>  compatibilty in a major version of Math, without changing package
>>>>  names, if thats what the Math devs want to do.
>>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>> I'll third that.
>>>
>>> -Rahul
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Niall
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  > Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>  >
>>>>  > [1] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/commons-lang/commons-lang/2.1
>>>>  > [2]
>>>>  >
>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/commons-collections/commons-collections/3.2
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message