commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <>
Subject Re: [io] 2.0 Moving to minimum of JDK 1.5
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:24:14 GMT
On 2/8/08, Jukka Zitting <> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Feb 8, 2008 3:49 PM, James Carman <> wrote:
> > So, you are suggesting having part of a release in the
> > package and the other part in the o.a.c.io2?
> No. I'd keep everything in
> If there's a class or interface, say, that needs to
> be changed extensively to match "Java 5 style", then I'd name the
> modified version (or something better if
> possible).

I don't know about that.  Then, we could potentially have classes like
SomeClass, SomeClass2, SomeClass3, etc. running around.  Also, it
wouldn't be as easy to upgrade to a new version.  If it were done the
other way, folks could just do a find/replace on the package name in
their code and be done.

On the other hand, it does allow you to introduce new incompatible
logic without requiring a new major release.  Hopefully folks wouldn't
abuse that.

> I assume such cases to be the exception rather than the rule, so I
> don't see the point in renaming the entire package.
> Java 5 is just an enabler of new features (generics, etc.), it doesn't
> magically make existing APIs obsolete. Sure, you probably want to
> adjust collection types, but that's just like any other API change
> request.
> BR,
> Jukka Zitting
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message