river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sean Landis" <sean.lan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Discuss: Package Naming for Incubator Release of River
Date Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:16:32 GMT
I *am* sensitive to the notion of compatibility but I would argue that
no effort should be spent creating a compatibility layer for the
com.sun.jini classes. It has historically been made perfectly clear
that the developer depends on these classes at his/her peril. There is
plenty of work to do and I do not think time should be spent on this.

On 7/22/07, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 22 July 2007 17:52, Dan Creswell wrote:
> > We would appreciate some clarification in respect of the above and some
> > guidance on what the minimum requirements might be. For example would
> > it be acceptable to create a compatibility layer and thus, for at least
> > this first release, have both com.sun and org.apache namespaces present
> > in our codebase and release? This would allow our users some time to
> > transition smoothly to the new package namespace.
>
> IMHO, yes transitional solutions are acceptable, and possibly even preferable.
>
> *I* would like to see;
>
> First Incubating Release - current package names.
>
> Then (optionally) - compatibility layer where org.apache.river wraps the
>                     com.sun.jini classes.
>
> Last Incubating release - the com.sun.jini classes are the wrappers to the
>                           org.apache.river classes.
>
> First Full Apache release - only org.apache.river classes.
>
> And I also think there is no contention about keeping the net.jini API classes
> as-is, without package name changes, which is what the majority of the Jini
> users actually refers to.
>
> Would that work?
>
>
> Cheers
> Niclas
>

Mime
View raw message