Niall Pemberton wrote:
-1
IMO breaking compatibility should be decided on a case-by-case basis
for components. For the widely used variety such as lang, logging,
collections etc then I agree lets avoid jar-hell and not do it. But
for other components that are not so widely used then such as Math I
think its better to minimize the pain of upgrading for the user.'
I keep going back and forth on this. I agree strongly with the
"minimize the pain" objective, which is why I have been pushing to keep
the incompatible changes to a minimum (which we have largely
accomplished). For me personally (with user hat on) it would be easier
if the package name did not change. I guess what it comes down to is
how many users will actually experience the "jar hell" scenario with
[math] vs. *every* user having to change all of their imports to upgrade.
Sorry to do this, but on reflection, I think no change is likely to be
the pain-minimizing alternative, so I am changing my vote to -1.
Phil
Niall
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote:
So let's vote on this proposal: change the top level package name on
[math] from org.apache.commons.math to org.apache.commons.math2.
[] +1 change the top level package name
[] 0 I don't care
[] -1 keep the old name
Vote open for 72 hours (up to Friday May 19th 20h00 UTC)
Luc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
