On 16/12/2022 13:24, Gary Gregory wrote:
Thank you Richard for starting this thread.
My view is simpler perhaps: I would not make this about the javax vs
Jakarta namespaces.
I don't want to double the numbers of jars we produce from the same branch
for affected components as one of the scheme proposed. It feels like a
burden to maintenance moving forward and a very brittle process with some
unforeseen side effects.
This is just a code change IMO. For a given component, either it is binary
compatible, or it is not. You don't know until you try it and see if public
and protected elements break, using our existing configuration of Maven and
japicmp (or revapi).
If it is binary compatible, then let's consider making the change. If not,
then do it in a major version, where the previous major version is
maintained as we do now, as need be.
A new major version also benefits from the usual dropping of deprecated
elements and making any other changes with seem reasonable.
+1. I don't see this as any different to increasing the minimum version
of Java and supported new JDBC methods.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
