commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:41:18 GMT
Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Phil,
>>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:12:
>>>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20:
>>>>>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement"
or not.
>>>>>>> Basically we say that dbcp 1.3 with JDBC4 will not be backward
>>>>>>> compatible. Then why don't we use the new artifactId for this
and allow
>>>>>>> 1.3 with JDBC3 to be a real drop-in replacement? If somebody
works with
>>>>>>> ranges, he might get the newer dbcp anyway and wondering about
>>>>>>> incompatibility later.
>>>>>>> Therefore we might better do:
>>>>>>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3
>>>>>>> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3
>>>>>> Thanks Jorg and Grzegorz.  Really appreciate the feedback. It is
>>>>>> important that we get this right, minimizing confusion / bad impact
>>>>>> to maven users and making upgrades both safe and as easy as
>>>>>> possible. I was thinking the same way as you, Jörg, on the groupId
>>>>>> change for the jdbc4 version.
>>>>> Note, that I also changed the artifactId "dbcp vs. dbcp4" ;-)
>>>>> However, thinking about it, I am not sure if this is necessary and we
>>>>> really keep the artifactId (your first plan). If somebody uses both
>>>>> artifacts (by transitive deps), his project is broken anyway. We simply
>>>>> have to point out in the website and README, that there are really two
>>>>> different commons-dbcp-1.3.jar files. Or is it too much confusion?
>>>> That worries ma a little bit, more for Ant than Maven users.
>>>> Incompatible jars with the same name in the wild is asking for
>>>> trouble (well, like the old days ;).
>>>> Another option, given that we don't have to mess with relocation
>>>> poms, is just to use org.apache.commons:dbcp:1.3 for the jdbc4 version.
>>> Well, the point was, that such a dbcp-1.3.jar is no longer backward
>>> compatible to a dbcp-1.2.x.jar. Therefore I proposed the change of the
>>> artifactId for the JDBC4 version in first place. And here are the Maven
>>> users affected ;-)
>> Did you miss that I cut out the "commons" from the artifactId?
>> That way we have commons-dbcp-1.3.jar and dbcp-1.3.jar in the wild.
>>  I guess I liked "dbcp" better than "commons-dbcp4" for the new
>> artifactId.  IIUC, the only reason we have kept the "commons-" on
>> the relocated commons artifactIds for components moved thus far is
>> so the relocation poms will work.   Since we are not doing that
>> here, we can make a clean break and use what seems to me at least a
>> more natural artifactId.  As always, could be I am missing something.
> This makes sense for people who consume the jars via maven since our
> groupid identifies the producer and the m2 repository is organised as
> that way - but oputside of maven I think retaining "commons" in the
> jar name (and therefore artifactId) makes better sense since it groups
> jars from our project together and makes it easier for people to
> realise the source of the jar. And I think its better to be consistent
> accross commons.

Good points - so what is your recommendation?







> Niall
>> Phil
>>> - Jörg
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message