commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oliver Heger <>
Subject Re: [lang] commons-lang 3.1 and commons-configuration
Date Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:20:09 GMT
Am 10.08.2012 14:12, schrieb Tom Weissinger:
> Oliver,
> Thanks for the information.
> Is the expectation that commons-configuration will undergo the same sort of
> change, where all the package names change to have "configuration2" like
> what was done with "lang3"?

Yes, both the package names and the Maven coordinates will change. In 
our opinion this is the only way to avoid jar hell.


> Tom
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Oliver Heger
> <>wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> Am 07.08.2012 22:21, schrieb Tom Weissinger:
>>   Hi,
>>> What is the timeline for commons-configuration to be compatible with
>>> commons-lang 3.1?  We want to be able to use some of the new features of
>>> commons-lang (like generic support) but commons-configuration still uses
>>> the old commons-lang.
>>> The end result is, if we use the latest versions of both libraries, we end
>>> up pulling into 2 different versions of commons-lang JAR.  I don't see
>>> this
>>> as a big deal, but if that in itself is an issue, please let me know.
>>> My primary question though is, when will commons-configuration support
>>> commons-lang 3.1?  What is holding it back?  Just people to work on it?
>>> Thanks!
>>> Tom
>>>   the main problem with support for commons-lang 3.x in
>> commons-configuration is that classes from commons-lang are part of the
>> public API of commons-configuration. Our release policy demands that a
>> change in the public API requires a major release - minor releases have to
>> be binary compatible.
>> Our original plan was to do some major API cleanup and redesign for the
>> next Configuration major release. But this will probably take too long.
>> Therefore, my intension is to release Configuration 1.9 (the current trunk
>> version which still depends on commons-lang 2.6) in the next few weeks, and
>> then prepare a major release with support for the most recent lang version
>> and some minor cleanup only. I hope that this will take place in the nearer
>> future, but cannot present a concrete time schedule.
>> In the meanwhile: It is no problem for the two versions of commons-lang to
>> co-exist. This scenario had been anticipated, and therefore it was ensured
>> that there are no conflicts.
>> Oliver
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@commons.**<>
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message