On Nov 5, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi James, > > James Carman wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Do you really consider this to be a -1? I consider this to be a >>> documentation issue. User's can pick and choose which providers they >>> want and simply need to be aware that Net 2.0 requires 1.5. >>> >> >> The providers are auto-registered based on what's on the classpath. >> So, if they added net 2.0 to their classpath, that provider would be >> registered. It may not be completely obvious that net 2.0 requires >> 1.5+. > > This is not the point. If they add net 2.0 to the classpath they are using > Java 5 probably anyway. The interesting quesiton is, what happens if net 1.4 > is on the classpath? I'd guess the provider is also auto-registered, but > will crash at some point ... > >> I agree this is probably just a documentation issue. Don't >> know if it should be a blocker. > > If the application will crash, just because net 1.4 is on the classpath, it > is a blocker. If an application can run as logn as it does not use the stuff > requiring net 2.0, it's unfortunate, but documentation is enough.
I would have expected causing an application to crash because 1.4 is on the classpath would have been a blocker to the net 2.0 release, not a blocker for something using commons net. Were incompatible API changes made or just the bump in the minimum JVM? Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
