I've run into this exact same problem with Xerces-J 2.x (not a Jakarta
project but it is a major "world-wide" jar).

The problem I had was this: A 3rd party company that we partner with
uses Xerces, fair enough and so does our software. When using this 3rd
party s/w we are stuck with the older version of Xerces they ship with
because of some API they use. This is just a different version of DLL
hell. 

Having a different jar name does not solve anything it is just
informative.

I suppose this is why we see more and more large apps shipping with
repackaged versions of components like Xerces and Xalan.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Oliver Zeigermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:27 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [proposal] avoiding jar version nightmares

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:09:11 -0800 (PST), David Graham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only time I've seen versioning problems is when commons components
> depend on each other and one of them breaks backwards compatibility
like
> commons collections did recectly.  This is why it's so important for
> commons components to have minimal dependencies.

Just think of a 1.x version and a 2.x version having the same package
and class names, but different method sets or even different
semantics. Now in a large project a piece of software from one vendor
needs 1.x and another one needs 2.x. Now consider they really need to
share the same class loader and you are lost. You would not if you
could have both 1.x and 2.x usable at the same time. Daniel's proposal
would make this possible.

Oliver

Disclaimer: Daniel talked this over with me in person yesterday, so
our points of view are pretty much aligned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to