commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com>
Subject Re: [codec] Moving on to codec 2.0
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2011 06:50:18 GMT
Julius Davies wrote:

>>> >> 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
>>
>>
> 
> Or let's use Sun style versioning, and call the next version 6.0 !!!
> (while still calling it 1.6 in the tag...)
> 
> ;-) ;-) ;-)
> 
> ps. Just to avoid confusion with my silly joke, I am +1 to Java5 and
> calling it 2.0 and trying our utmost to preserve drop-in reverse
> compatibility.

fine, just don't drop this last requirement light-heartedly ;-)

- Jörg




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


Mime
View raw message