commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [math] top-level package name
Date Thu, 21 May 2009 12:37:38 GMT
Phil Steitz wrote:

> Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> -1
>> IMO breaking compatibility should be decided on a case-by-case basis
>> for components. For the widely used variety such as lang, logging,
>> collections etc then I agree lets avoid jar-hell and not do it. But
>> for other components that are not so widely used then such as Math I
>> think its better to minimize the pain of upgrading for the user.'
> I keep going back and forth on this.  I agree strongly with the
> "minimize the pain" objective, which is why I have been pushing to keep
> the incompatible changes to a minimum (which we have largely
> accomplished).  For me personally (with user hat on) it would be easier
> if the package name did not change.  I guess what it comes down to is
> how many users will actually experience the "jar hell" scenario with
> [math] vs. *every* user having to change all of their imports to upgrade.
> Sorry to do this, but on reflection, I think no change is likely to be
> the pain-minimizing alternative, so I am changing my vote to -1.

Guys, you know what you do? Actually it was already reported to the list
that some projects already faced the incompatibility problem even with
math. With you veto you simply tell them "it's your problem, but we don't
have a solution for it either". That's what I would call a complete show

If somebody really want to migrate to newer math, he can simply search and
replace every org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2 and will
then face the locations in the code where he has actually to adjust
something. However, he must not fear that due to his switch some other 3rd
party dep will no longer operate. With your scenario, he's simply out of
the game.

- Jörg

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

View raw message