commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Colebourne <>
Subject Re: [all] Rebooting commons projects
Date Sun, 17 May 2009 22:16:57 GMT
Matt Benson wrote:
> Or, to put it another way, the consensus seems to be
 > that the component + the major version # makes a "project."

As I've said before, I won't try and stop this, I no longer have the 
moral rights here. I do believe that this approach is profoundly wrong 

Consider an analagous case - Tapestry. Each major version of Tapestry is 
known, with derision, as being extremely different to the previous. This 
is to the extent that I, and I'm pretty sure many, many others wouldn't 
touch Tapestry with a barge pole now simply because we can't rely on it 
not being reinvented all the time.

A project name does imply something important about compatibility even 
across major versions in my book.

For example, if I do release Joda-Time it will simply be a version with 
the deprecated methods removed, and maybe a few edge cases tweaked. Its 
the classic commons type library (even though its not in commons). 
Imagine the chaos and confusion if I were to declare the 'rebooted' 
jsr-310 as Joda-Time 2. Unthinkable. Yet, that is exactly what is being 
proposed here.

So, to be crystal clear. In my opinion, even changing the major version 
of a well known project doesn't entitle it to go and have major changes.

And given that restriction, it should be clear that only a new project 
tackling the same problem space can provide the desired innovation.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message