Julius Davies wrote: >>> >> Nothing of this (including minimum requirement of Java 5) requires >>> >> automatically 2.x. As long as the API is *upward* binary compatible, >>> >> you can >>> >> improve the implementation using this features, adding new methods or >>> new >>> >> classes. Even generics can be added to some extend in a binary >>> compatible >>> >> way. This has been done for dbcp and there we deliver due to JDBC 3/4 >>> even >>> >> two versions. >>> >> >>> > >>> > I feels like jumping to Java 5 is important enough to go to calling it >>> 2.0. >>> >>> +1 agreed; it's a non-trivial change to introduce generics. >>> >>> > We could keep it 1.6 until something breaks... >>> >>> Dunno what you mean by that. >>> >> >> I thought that we could call it 1.6 until a break in API would justify >> 2.0. >> >> But, nevermind, because I think we all agree on calling it 2.0 with Java >> 5. >> >> Gary >> >> > > Or let's use Sun style versioning, and call the next version 6.0 !!! > (while still calling it 1.6 in the tag...) > > ;-) ;-) ;-) > > ps. Just to avoid confusion with my silly joke, I am +1 to Java5 and > calling it 2.0 and trying our utmost to preserve drop-in reverse > compatibility.
fine, just don't drop this last requirement light-heartedly ;-) - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
