On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 23:24:52 +0100, Oliver Zeigermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Major releases, i.e. e.g. from 1.x to 2.x are there not to be backward > compatible. Especially, I would even consider it dangerous to replace > a 1.x version with 2.x without checks just to have a newer version. > Semantics could have chages. Consider collections from 2. to 3. What > was done there was perfectly alright.
Collections was indeed perfectly alright to make backwards-incompatible changes between versions 2 and 3. However, you should also note that these changes were *not* universal -- for a very large number of classes, the calling sequences *are* backwards compatible. Now, let's assume that Collections had implemented the "package name includes major version" rule. If I had restricted myself to the (quite large) subset where there was no real change, I would have been *incredibly* irritated at having to change package names in *my* application's imports -- just because you gratuitously changed the package name (and therefore made *all* APIs backward incompatible). Craig --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
