commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Carman <>
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
<> 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:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message