On 4/27/11 6:29 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > sebb wrote: > >> All Commons components other than DBCP have at most one current >> version per major release (e.g. NET has 1.4.1 and 2.2). >> >> DBCP uses a different versioning scheme from all other components: >> >> DBCP 1.4 for JDBC 4 (JDK 1.6) >> DBCP 1.3 for JDBC 3 (JDK 1.4-1.5) >> >> This is rather confusing. >> >> Seems to me it would be better to move to a naming scheme that did not >> rely on the minor version number to distinguish JDBC versions. >> >> Instead of >> >> commons-dbcp-1.3-bin.zip >> commons-dbcp-1.4-bin.zip >> >> perhaps we should have >> >> commons-dbcp-2.0-jdbc3-bin.zip >> commons-dbcp-2.0-jdbc4-bin.zip >> >> or >> >> commons-dbcp-jdbc3-2.0-bin.zip >> commons-dbcp-jdbc4-2.0-bin.zip >> >> [It does not help that the README.html file only describes the 1.4 >> release; I'll fix that] > -0 > > Peronally, I am perfectly fine with the current naming scheme. The releases > are upwards binary compatible and 1.3.x may phase out once we drop Java 5 > support for DBCP. Both naming schemes would prevent an easy update, since > you can no longer manage dbcp by version ony, but wou'll have to adjust > artifact or classifier everywhere. Agreed. This was discussed at length a year or so ago when we decided that we had to split the JDBC 3 and 4 versions. There is *no difference* between 1.3 and 1.4 other than the JDBC 4 methods not included in 1.3. Jorg is right that we also agreed that as of 2.0, we would require JDK 1.6, which means only JDBC 4 - so there will be no jdbc3-2.0 version.
Phil > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
