> I seem to recall there being a strong view that we didn't want > Collections to be glossy painted with 1.5, but that whole APIs should > be rethought as they contained workarounds to the lack of generics.
But can't the library be first moved to a point where one can say the new releases will run only on 1.5+ JVM, and then gradually/slowly/carefully re-work/generify the internals as necessary ? So at least this won't constrain any new development effort from using all the goodies in 1.5+, and yet let the old code co-exist while the move to 1.5+ is in progress. Personally, I simply won't program in any pre-1.5 environment. My 2c. Hanson Char On 10/25/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Afaiu, the main reluctance is that no one has stepped up and started > organizing it. > > I seem to recall there being a strong view that we didn't want > Collections to be glossy painted with 1.5, but that whole APIs should > be rethought as they contained workarounds to the lack of generics. > > +1 on pulling together the information into one place. > > Hen > > On 10/25/07, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe we should set up a wiki page to discuss this 1.5 problem for > > collections (and maybe other projects). We should outline why we have > > been reluctant as of yet to "genericize" collections (binary > > compatibility, serialization issues, etc.). That way folks don't have > > to try to search through the archives or try to remember (I'm having a > > hard time remembering the whole conversation) all the details. > > > > On 10/25/07, Brian A. Egge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > What's the status of the JDK 1.5 branch? It seems the developers are > > > split as to if it's a good thing, and if so, if the API should be > > > different or the same. Most advice I see says to use the collections15 > > > project on SourceForge. > > > > > > What I would like, is a drop in replacement, with binary backwards > > > compatibility with the 1.4 version. I want everything in the same > > > package name, and to have the same names. If there are some additional > > > methods, then that would be ok. Basically, I found upgrading the JDK > > > collections has been rather painless. My 1.4 projects work fine in 1.5, > > > and if I want to change my code to use generics I can. Eclipse even will > > > help me out with this. Because Java decided to use type erasure, it's > > > possible to have a library with generics, that works identically to one > > > without. > > > > > > I ran clirr against the 1.5 branch, comparing it to the 3.3 snapshot in > > > the trunk. It reported 93 differences. I'm happy to spend some time > > > creating patches for this project, if there are other people (read > > > committers) who have the time to review and apply the patches, and also > > > share my vision of a compatible library. > > > > > > Commons Collections is one of the most popular components within the > > > Commons project, and the main use of generics is within container > > > classes, so I think it would be a real benefit to get this project up to > > > date. > > > > > > -Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
