> -----Original Message----- > From: Lukasz Lenart > Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2013 8:40 > > 2013/12/31 Benedikt Ritter <brit...@apache.org>: > >> > > The old OGNL (legacy) releases use the > >> > > > >> > > "package ognl;" > >> > > > >> > > declarations, where as the apache releases will use > >> > > > >> > > "package org.apache.commons.ognl;" > >> > > > >> > > I would create a set of proxy classes in the old package > >> > space which > >> > > call the classes in the new space. > >> > > >> > These will only be required for a small proportion of > users, so I > >> > suggest they are packaged in a separate jar. > >> > >> That was always assumed. The question would it be > appropiate for an > >> Apache release, or should it be released elsewhere. > >> > > > > Our software usually uses the org.apache.commons namespace. I'm not > > sure if this is an absolute requirement. To me it feels like these > > adapters should be developed and maintained else where. Thoughts? > > Introducing that proxies is a bad idea - Apache Ognl is a bit > different beast than original Ognl and it will never be a > drop-in replacement, you will have to migrate your code anyway.
One less thing to do then. Thanks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
