Can we proceed like so? - I'll save my generified codec in an svn branch ASAP. - we can discuss that and get the best design - is it binary compatible? - if not, which is my current view, then package is codec2
We have lang3 and digester3 under our belts now with new packages. Are we going to change policy again? I hope not. We sure spent a lot of time on this and thought we made a sane decision as a community. Joda-time is its own world can do what it wants but I'd like to keep my sanity in commons land with clear and consistent policies ;) Wrt to removing deprecations, we can revisit each change one at a time if someone cares to data mine svn for the age of each or whatever metric you want. Cheers to all and thank you for your time and constructive feedback :) Gary On Aug 12, 2011, at 6:31, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: > On 12 August 2011 11:19, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> - Removing deprecated methods does not require a package name change >> >> How so? >> >> If there are any external references to them in an application that >> cannot be removed, then both old and new jars will need to be >> deployed. >> Which cannot be done safely in a single classloader (no guarantee >> which instance of duplicated classes will be loaded). >> AFAIK Maven prevents duplicates anyway. > > In Joda-Time v2.0 I removed some deprecated methods and left others in > (no package name change). Those that I removed were methods that were > deprecated for a very long time (probably4years+), with multiple later > versions with the deprecation and easy alternates. Those that I did > not remove were classes and methods that were probably still in use by > people as they were once a primary API. This is a judgement call. > > And yes, removing a deprecated element means that another project that > still uses the deprecation can no longer run. But if you've had > something deprecated for over 3 years, that doesn't seem too harsh, > unless it used to be a key/primary API. > > In hard cases, I'd rather see "NewFoo" of "Foo2" replacing "Foo" > within the same package name, or a new sub-package within the same > o.a.c.codec package space rather than o.a.c.codec2 for everything. > > Stephen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
