commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [codec] Moving on to codec 2.0
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2011 02:07:04 GMT
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:36 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1 April 2011 01:40, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jochen,
> >>
> >> Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Julius Davies <
> juliusdavies@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm confused.  We support streaming for Base64 since codec-1.4 (and
> >> >> now Base32 since codec-1.5).  You committed the Base64InputStream
> >> >> patch, Jochen!
> >> >>
> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CODEC-69
> >> >>
> >> >> Is there other streaming you would like to see in commons-codec?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sure, you still dropped a lot of functionality when copying the stuff
> >> > from ws-commons. The Encoder and Decoder classes from ws-commons are
> >> > way more abstract and generic than the current codec stuff is and the
> >> > SAXEncoder is just one example where this is actually useful. Not to
> >> > mention StAX, NIO, and a lot of other places where streaming codecs
> >> > might be useful.
> >>
> >> Nothing of this (including minimum requirement of Java 5) requires
> >> automatically 2.x. As long as the API is *upward* binary compatible, you
> >> can
> >> improve the implementation using this features, adding new methods or
> new
> >> classes. Even generics can be added to some extend in a binary
> compatible
> >> way. This has been done for dbcp and there we deliver due to JDBC 3/4
> even
> >> two versions.
> >>
> >
> > I feels like jumping to Java 5 is important enough to go to calling it
> 2.0.
>
> +1 agreed; it's a non-trivial change to introduce generics.
>
> > We could keep it 1.6 until something breaks...
>
> Dunno  what you mean by that.
>

I thought that we could call it 1.6 until a break in API would justify 2.0.

But, nevermind, because I think we all agree on calling it 2.0 with Java 5.

Gary


> > Gary
> >
> >
> >> Therefore is the question of Sebb not so limiting as you seem to imply.
> >>
> >> - Jörg
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thank you,
> > Gary
> >
> > http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
> > http://garygregory.com/
> > http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
> > http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Thank you,
Gary

http://garygregory.wordpress.com/
http://garygregory.com/
http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/
http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message