commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Weissinger <>
Subject Re: [lang] commons-lang 3.1 and commons-configuration
Date Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:12:48 GMT

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"?


On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Oliver Heger

> 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:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message