Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rahul.akolkar@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.198.251 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=cYUIwRgU1BQzvMcqQ31886ht61GT2BODeEYIy58Vieaf+ojknrOV/7ZmJiUCejwmgAxC+/0JmRvINKN67yK/jjNbzhihEJrJHF3O0JFQcMxf5izxuLHXyV5UVzxJdkpgJl3tNP0bzkWjt6gDoC69b8EsUnOAv7BwVxKynT2D52A=
Message-ID: <ce1f2ea80805151701p7ecd4fb6ucb44d3a21050d5e9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 20:01:21 -0400
From: "Rahul Akolkar" <rahul.akolkar@gmail.com>
To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [math] should version 2.0 be targeted to Java 5 ?
In-Reply-To: <55afdc850805151650s43f83269ie57e1b3c22170c0d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48271E89.2040502@free.fr>
	 <f2e8eedf0805141803s4d100a4bp9ea9932ec3d13c6c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <482BFA7D.1050500@apache.org>
	 <8a81b4af0805150902x6f68be94y7a28b9fbe154d9fd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <482C6878.4070508@apache.org>
	 <25aac9fc0805151004p23de1794v421297c096d30440@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f2e8eedf0805151018l4069c2b7l293ae7fa041c6da8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <25aac9fc0805151035v5d979040g5c018ee8bc0b21c1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <482CC6BB.1090104@apache.org>
	 <55afdc850805151650s43f83269ie57e1b3c22170c0d@mail.gmail.com>

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> wrot=
e:
>  > sebb a =E9crit :
>  >
>  >> 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 wo=
uld
>  > 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, bu=
t
>  > [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-collecti=
ons/3.2
>

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