commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accept the package name/artifactId guideline as a "rule"...
Date Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:18:43 GMT
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Stephen Colebourne
<scolebourne@joda.org> wrote:
>
> For example, if a whole set of new features is added, it can be worth
> using a new version number for marketing reasons (advertising the
> major new features). This can result in a major version that is still
> compatible.
>
> It is also possible for a major version to remove just one or two long
> deprecated methods. In this case, the pain of a package name change is
> outweighed by the small likelihood of problems.
>
> Finally, there are cases where the objects referred to are significant
> value types that are widely used. In this case, changing the package
> name is problematic as it causes other libraries that expose those
> value types onwards to have problems.
>
> As an example, Joda-Time may soon have a v2.0. Changing the package
> name would be necessary if there was major incompatibility. However,
> in the plan, Joda-Time 2.0 includes Java 5 generics support which is
> 99% compatible, and the removal of just a handful of long deprecated
> methods. Furthermore, since many, many other systems use Joda-Time in
> their APIs, having two versions out there simply wouldn't work.
>

All of these examples would be situations where you'd make the case
that this is an exception, which is allowed by the "rule".

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


Mime
View raw message