On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 08:54, robert burrell donkin wrote: > now that the beanutils release is reaching toward completion, i'm > turning towards the digester release. the release branch was created a > while ago but there are still some thing which need to be decided.
Woohoo!! > > one important issue are the dependencies: in particular, disposing with > the commons collection dependency (which prevents compatibility with > both 2.x and 3.x). > > i can see two possibilities: either we upgrade the beanutils dependency > to the latest release (which contains the collections classes that > digester depends on) or we keep the current beanutils dependency and > add the necessary classes (as a temporary measure until the appropriate > methods are deprecated). > > originally, i'd assumed that we'd automatically just upgrade the > beanutils dependency but (previously) stephen made some good arguments > for added the classes where necessary. anyone else have any opinions? Do you have a reference to Stephen's arguments? I'm not generally a great supporter of binary compatibility. I think if you intend to ship a new release of a library, then you really need a testing cycle. And if you're doing that, a recompile is no big deal. Unless we roll back Craig McClanahan's changes to use a local ArrayStack implementation, we have binary incompatibilities between Digester 1.5 and 1.6 anyway (as described in the current release notes). So I'm currently in favour of upgrading the BeanUtils dependency. However I'd like to read Stephen's arguments.... Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
