On 28 December 2017 at 19:49, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > - BeanUtils now has a new package o.a.c.beanutils2. > - BeanUtils now depends on Apache Commons Collection 4 (instead of 3), > which caused the above. > > What more do we want before releasing 2.0.0? > > Updating from BU 1.x to 2.x should be "simple" for now: Just update your > imports.
This can make things far worse for end users. If jar file A updates to v2.0 but jar file B does not, an application C that depends on A and B cannot pass the output of [beanutils] around. Instead, it gets the same class names repeated twice, and horrid conversion code. While I understand the jar hell problem fully, I'm not sure that package renaming the whole jar is really any better - its just a different kind of hell. If only one class exposes one problem return type in a method that not everyone uses, it seems _on balance_ better to change the method without changing the package names. The bump to v2.0 would still be a sufficient indication of the potential compatibility issue (rarely hit in reality). However, if the method in question is a vital part of the main API, it might be worth changing the package name. In other words, I think the presumption that all breaking changes require a package name change is damaging - the package name change should be an action of last resort. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
