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 jak-commons-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.12 as permitted sender)
To: dev@commons.apache.org
From: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cmc=?= Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two
Followup-To: gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.devel
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:04:15 +0100
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <hem5dg$2os$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <4B0DA868.2090801@gmail.com> <4B0DAC2C.7090709@gmail.com>
 <b9e663070911251423h341f7f6boeca8ff290f979ff7@mail.gmail.com>
 <55afdc850911251525j206c6911j25edb72055d04da5@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B0DBE51.8010500@gmail.com>
 <55afdc850911251539h6f9a091ap34d655bc6c6d010b@mail.gmail.com>
 <55afdc850911251548o23614c09l31621fb725d5ae72@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B0DC694.9040803@gmail.com>
 <b9e663070911251646h612ca38cy63e43b1265fe722c@mail.gmail.com>
 <55afdc850911251651y2adff6ffu86c2f66ff7c200de@mail.gmail.com>
 <b9e663070911252003o1792ff46td1e1f495236a5030@mail.gmail.com>
 <heldao$n34$1@ger.gmane.org> <4B0E8E95.4060805@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
User-Agent: KNode/4.3.1
Sender: news <news@ger.gmane.org>

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 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, 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 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?

> I see this as killing two birds with
> one stone - getting us to the maven standard groupId moving forward
> and eliminating or at least making less likely the chance of users
> blowing up due to unintentional incompatible upgrades.

Yes. And we can avoid the tedious relocation POMs, because it is no 
relocation.

> Regarding Tomcat, Mark or someone else can chime in to confirm, but
> my understanding is that tomcat builds and repackages dbcp from
> source using Ant and as long as we keep trunk sources as they are,
> tomcat will be able to build all versions.

- Jörg


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