commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [lang] Java 5
Date Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:05:27 GMT
On 12/06/2008, James Carman <> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <> wrote:
> >> Do you mean that the removal of the enums would mean that we have to
>  >> change package names?
>  >>
>  >> Would class/interface removals necessitate a
>  >> package name change?  I haven't really thought that through.
>  >
>  > Perhaps not, neither had I
>  >

Removal of a *public* interface/method/class means that the API is not
compatible, as it is not possible to replace the jar without breaking
classes that use these items.

If jar X depends on oldMethod() and jar Y requires newMethod() it will
be difficult/impossible to combine jars X and Y in the same

So I would say removals would need a name change.

If the item is not public, then it might be possible to avoid a rename
- depends on whether the item is likely to be used by external

Maybe there are some methods/classes etc that are flagged as
"internal" use only, in which case 3rd parties cannot complain if the
APIs change. C.f. the com.sun packages.

BTW, perhaps Commons should have a similar naming convention for
packages that need to contain public methods, but which are only
intended to be used in Commons libraries.

> I mentioned it as a conversation starter.  I'm not saying it does or
>  doesn't.  I can be somewhat shortsighted sometimes when it comes to
>  situations like this. :)  I just hoped other folks who have maybe
>  encountered the situation and have a strong opinion one way or the
>  other would weigh in.
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>  For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message