Makes a lot of sense, yes. If we really break backward compatibility we can always bump the major version of that jar file and people can depend on the exact version if they don't want to move to a new version.
On Mar 18, 2010, at 10:42 , Guillaume Nodet wrote: > Sounds good. I did not really envision to use this subproject as a real > bundle either. To ensure that we may want to not release it as a bundle but > a plain jar. > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:32, Marcel Offermans <[email protected] >> wrote: > >> Hello Guillaume, >> >> Great initiative. I think its good to have a common toolbox to get utility >> classes from. >> >> On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:49 , Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> >>> Also, now is the time to refactor those classes as needed, once they'll >> be >>> release, it'll be a bit more difficult to incorporate major refactoring. >> >> I am wondering if a collection of utility classes ever will have a "stable >> API". My personal preference would be to release this as a library from >> which individual bundles can take classes or packages, but not as a bundle >> which exports its whole contents. >> >> If a project then decides to share amongst a set of bundles what they take >> from this toolbox, that's their responsibility. >> >> Or at least do it like this until we are confident we have a "stable API". >> >> Greetings, Marcel >> >> > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com
