From: Kris Nuttycombe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> James Carman wrote: > > I don't like forking all of commons together. To say > > commons5-collections-1.0 doesn't work for me. Then, we have to get > > all of > > the commons projects to decide on "fork points." Am I understanding (c) > > correctly? > I don't think there has to be commons-wide fork at all. I just see the > name change at the commons level rather than the package level being an > approach that can be useful to other packages, so that the other > projects that will inevitably make the switch can do so in a uniform > manner. > > In the end, I'm most interested that whatever method is adopted be a > solution that can work for all of the commons projects that may want to > generify. BeanUtils could certainly be improved with generics, as could > Lang and others. In my shop, at least, we've been using JDK5 for over a > year now and the lack of progress towards creating generic versions of > the Commons components bespeaks a bit of stagnation. I've got the itch > for generics across the board; I'd like to be able to scratch it.
Yes. I regret using the word 'fork' now, as it has negative connotations. And I agree that quite a few projects need generifications (or rather Java5-ification). Now I'm on JDK5 at work (and its been a massive pain upgrading) I'd like commons to support JDK5. Consider [lang] - a good proportion of [lang] is providing ways to support JDK5 features on earlier JDKs. We might not choose to support them once we have a JDK5 version. The same applies to [collections]. The commons5 name is quite a nice way to express all this. Is it really much different to how Tomcat manages J2EE versions? And I definitely do not think it involves forking the whole of commons!!! Not sure where that idea comes from, but 'commons5' is just a naming conventinon (and package name) for those projects which want a JDK5+ specific version. We need to remember why JDK5 is so important - its because its almost a whole new language. Its not a small incremental step like prior upgrades. We should treat it as such. (Especially as lots of big enterprises are perfectly happy on JDK1.4 and aren't planning to upgrade) Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
