commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [net] binary compatibility be damned
Date Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:36:39 GMT
On 19 April 2011 09:33, Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedmann@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Torsten Curdt <tcurdt@vafer.org> wrote:
>
>> * source compatibility for x.*.*
>
> Disagreed. I can quote numerous examples of application servers that
> come with varying versions of commons-foo, even within my employers
> house. Your proposal would mean that I had to create varying jar files
> of the applications shared library, depending on the application
> server.

I agree that we should strive for source compatibility within a major release.
There may be some source changes that could be allowed (e.g. dropping
an obsolete constant) within a major release, but in general I agree
we should have a major version bump for updates that require source
changes.

> I am quite happy with our current policy, that we either maintain
> binary compatibility or change the package name. OTOH, I do support
> every attempt to drop old stuff by doing the latter.

Agreed in principle, but not if there are drip feed changes.

We should not expect downstream users to change to a new binary API
(new package) more than (say) once a year, if that.

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


Mime
View raw message