commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Wooten <>
Subject Re: [IO] 2.0 RC2 available for review
Date Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:32:56 GMT
Hey All,

As a user (and occasional contributor) I would have to agree with Jorg
that 1.5 makes more sense, in the fact that it does retain binary
compatibility. Like with Lang 3.0, I would expect that the 2.0 release
would be a major change (dropping backwards compatibility, removing
deprecated code, using incompatible 1.5 features, etc.). The new
refinements sound more like an extension to the 1.4 release to me, so
1.5 makes more sense.

Will there be a point in the future where IO will be removing
deprecated code and dropping backwards compatibility? If so, what
release of IO will that be? That sounds more like a 2.0 release to me,
but that's my opinion.


On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Niall Pemberton
<> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Jörg Schaible <> wrote:
>>> Nial wrote:
>>>> The original plan for 2.0 was thinking it would be *incompatible* and
>>>> hence the major version changed - I guess it mainly stuck from that
>>>> starting point:
>>>> Sebb did bring this up earlier this year though - although most of
>>>> that debate ended up about maven groupIds:
>>>> It is arbitrary though - my preference is for 2.0 since it makes it
>>>> easy to remember which releases were for JDK 1.3 and which for JDK
>>>> 1.5. Also it seems like moving to JDK 1.5 warrants more of a version
>>>> change than +0.1
>> James Carman wrote:
>>> So, call it 1.5
>> Hehehe.
>> Seriously, we have switched the minimal JDK requirement often between minor
>> versions (most prominent case is DBCP) and kept Maven G:A as long as it is
>> binary compatible. Comparing the gap from lang 2.x to lang 3.x, it looks
>> strange to me switching for io from 1.x to 2.0.
> I guess it is a bit arbitrary - but then I think each component makes
> the decision on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't seem strange to me
> and I prefer 2.0 than 1.5. Also it leaves room if we ever want to
> release a bug-fix for the JDK 1.3 branch. I know thats unlikely,
> although Jukka did talk of doing this for Jackrabbit
>> What would be your intention as a normal user with this versioning?
>> Would you use it as drop in replacement?
> Its drop in except you now need a later JDK version. Anyway, I would
> hope they would read the release notes:
> ...and be pleasantly surprised that it is a drop in replacement :)
> I do think it from a user PoV it does make it easier to remember which
> version the JDK change happened and I think it likely users would find
> it strange that a change in JDK version only warranted a +0.1 in
> version number.
> Niall
>> - Jörg
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message