Reinhard Poetz wrote: > > Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > On 14 Oct 2004, at 16:18, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > >> > >> My point remains: we've been burned too much before already in > >> depending on frameworks we don't control. > >> > >> I still think it would be better to write our own entirely > from scratch. > >> > >> Want to use ideas for Spring? sure, bring them on, but > depending on > >> it is asking for trouble. > >> > > > > 100% agreed! :-P > > > > Pier > > > > Agree too! > I agree that the core should be "free". Now of course we have then the compatibility problem for core components like the source resolver, store, xml stuff etc.
The more I think about it the more I like the way Next/Apple does this for years: they never had any problems with renaming methods or classes or changing signatures of that improved the framework. To make things easier for developers they provided two things: - a very good documentation that listed every change in the API and the new way of doing things - an updater tool that simply took the old source code and updated it to the new API - and this tool worked very well. So, what about doing it this way as well? Remove all dependencies, make our own source resolver etc. and provide docs and a tool. Writing such a tool isn't that difficult. We already wrote such tools as Eclipse plugins using the Eclipse search/refactor API, but I guess that could be used in an Ant task as well. I think this is not the worst way of handling this issue. I guess that we will use the same methods for those core components but just different class/package names. WDYT? Carsten
