Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:00:04 +0200
From: Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
To: <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [rng] JARs with different dependencies within the same
 =?UTF-8?Q?component=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <nouue5$af6$1@blaine.gmane.org>
References: <640c32953c445b231a83d5f0b80ddd1e@scarlet.be>
 <noueeq$9s4$1@blaine.gmane.org>
 <f3074c0094666611d5d29021ef134cc0@scarlet.be>
 <nouue5$af6$1@blaine.gmane.org>
Message-ID: <684649034e90dc2e101beabd291eec2c@scarlet.be>
User-Agent: Scarlet Webmail
X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: sif; whitelist
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1-exp at sif
X-Virus-Status: Clean
archived-at: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:55:51 -0000

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:42:53 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 09:10:06 +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Gilles,
>>>
>>> Gilles wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>> Suppose that
>>>>    commons-rng-core-1.0.jar
>>>> depends on JDK 1.6.
>>>>
>>>> And that we wish to offer utilities (e.g. random strings) and 
>>>> other
>>>> syntactic sugar (such as Java 8 streams) in
>>>>    commons-rng-utils-1.0.jar
>>>> that would depend on JDK 1.8.
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible?
>>>
>>> Yes. Have a look at XStream
>>> (https://github.com/x-stream/xstream/blob/master/xstream/pom.xml), 
>>> it
>>> already does this (since
>>> years), currently to support lambda expressions. It declarers 
>>> simply
>>> a
>>> second compiler execution. Note, there's a bug in Maven that forces
>>> you to
>>> define as many excludes in the second execution as in the first 
>>> one.
>>
>> IIUC, it is not exactly what I had in mind, which would amount to
>> having two separate JARs: "core" and "utils".
>> "core" is anticipated to be stable (hopefully) while "utils" could
>> evolve faster and possibly in a non-compatible way.
>>
>> I.e. we could have
>>
>> core-1.0
>>
>> utils-1.0
>>    depends on core-1.0
>>
>> utils-1.1
>>    depends on core-1.0
>>
>> utils-2.0
>>    depends on core-1.0
>>
>> core-1.1 (e.g. after adding a new RNG implementation)
>>
>> utils-2.1
>>    depends on core-1.1
>
> Well, a commons component has *one* version. You can introduce 
> another
> artifact (just like Artem proposed), but there's no independent 
> release
> cycle.

That's what I was afraid of; in this case, it would defeat the purpose:
We shouldn't have to release "core-2.0" (thus a with change of the
top-level package name), just because we want to fix something in the
"utils" code.

Given this situation, would it be possible to consider a separate
component: "commons-rng-utils"?


Regards,
Gilles

> Cheers,
> Jörg
>


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