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 (nike.apache.org: domain of phil.steitz@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.222.199 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=DVb/Ygo1MXf35+YMB0TII4xQRfBses4fhTthUw0jTqDEwNzCz1Dl6md5GermaeT07r
         ti51RF6MdZiwEX3cWrPm4l7ZvIWj2CdD4yQbeow/mTunvy98Y6VPh4BIisC5/HSYQaer
         XY74o3Y9YgVOQgW4GuiBS3ph8yvnMeabm4R4M=
Message-ID: <4B0EBDBE.3000300@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:41:18 -0500
From: Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two
References: <4B0DA868.2090801@gmail.com>
	 <b9e663070911251646h612ca38cy63e43b1265fe722c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <55afdc850911251651y2adff6ffu86c2f66ff7c200de@mail.gmail.com>
	 <b9e663070911252003o1792ff46td1e1f495236a5030@mail.gmail.com>
	 <heldao$n34$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <4B0E8E95.4060805@gmail.com>	 <hem5dg$2os$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <4B0EA8FB.8040507@gmail.com>	 <hema9r$hsj$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <4B0EAF2D.6020403@gmail.com>
 <55afdc850911260901v2511adddpe1eacd73fb50e7c7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55afdc850911260901v2511adddpe1eacd73fb50e7c7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> J�rg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:12:
>>>
>>>> J�rg Schaible wrote:
>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20:
>>>>>
>>>>>> J�rg 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 the
>>>>>>> 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, J�rg, 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 can
>>>>> 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?

org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3
commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3

or

org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp:1.3
commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3

or

org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp:1.4
commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3

or?


Phil
> 
> Niall
> 
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>> - J�rg
>>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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