commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: [VFS] next release
Date Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:59:57 GMT
I think you guys missed what the suggestion was.  If it is possible we could just add a subproject
to vfs2 that provides the needed glue between the existing providers and the Java 7 api. 
I would imagine this subproject would only be included when compiling with a java 7 compiler,
otherwise it would be skipped.

Ralph

On Dec 8, 2011, at 6:46 AM, sebb wrote:

> On 8 December 2011 13:35, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@scalaris.com> wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8 December 2011 11:01, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@scalaris.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> sebb wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 8 December 2011 07:11, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@scalaris.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for
VFS on
>>>>>>> Java 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based versions
that
>>>>>>> do break binary compatibility.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We can retain the VFS name and brand for the project, but I'd
prefer
>>>>>>> o.a.c.vfs<n> to be for VFS2 based work and to create o.a.c.filesystem
>>>>>>> (or fs) for Java 7 FileSystem-based work.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Until now we had the policy to add the major number to the package
name
>>>>>> i.e. this is org.apache.commons.vfs3 here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I already mentioned earlier in this thread, that may clash with
>>>>> updates to VFS 2.x that need a new package name.
>>>> 
>>>> And how long do you expect that both branches are actively developed? It
>>>> took years from 1.x to 2.x. And why should someone start active
>>>> development with vfs2 if there's already vfs3 around?
>>> 
>>> Because AIUI VFS3 targets Java 1.7 up; it won't work on Java 1.5 or 1.6.
>>> 
>>> I hope no-one is suggesting that VFS no longer be developed for Java
>>> 1.6 just yet.
>> 
>> I did not say that, but I don't expect major refactorings and an API
>> redesign for VFS2 if there's already a successor (and this time with an API
>> defined by the JDK). We should be interested ourselves to stay API-
>> compatible in the VFS2 series.
> 
> Of course, but it may not be possible to maintain binary compatibility.
> Are we sure that new API is perfect? Or at least fixable without
> breaking compat?
> 
> I suppose we could use vfs2a, vfs2b etc.
> 
> However, given that VFS3 is going to be a different API altogether, I
> think it would be better to use a package name that is more
> distinctive.
> 
>> - Jörg
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 


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


Mime
View raw message