On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:10 AM, sebb wrote: > On 5 November 2010 15:30, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 5, 2010, at 2:49 AM, sebb wrote: >> >>> On 5 November 2010 03:05, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>>> This is a vote to release Apache Commons VFS 2.0. >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 release it >>>> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care >>>> [X] -1 no, do not release it because... >>> >>> The code has a dependency on Commons NET 2.0, which requires Java 1.5+ >>> However VFS targets Java 1.4+ >> >> 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. > > If NET 2.0 is truly optional, then it is not a blocker so long as it > is clearly documented. > > I assume that NET 2.0 was added in order to support FTPS?
I have no idea. You did the update from 1.4.1 to 2.0 in 999496 on 09/21/10. The support for FTPS was added in 993534 by jcarman on 09/0710. > > If so, what about someone using Java 1.4 - can they update to VFS 2.0, > but keep the FTP support from NET 1.4? > Or will they lose FTP support entirely? Both FTP and FTPS look for the presence of org.apache.commons.net.ftp.FTPFile. I would assume that in a Java 1.4 system Net 2.0 would cause a wrong version error when the jar is loaded. VFS is looking for a ClassNotFoundException to determine whether the dependency is present. I don't recall what exception/error is thrown when the version is wrong. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
