> Once our refactoring of commons classes into namespace > org.apache.myfaces.commons.* is done we can easily change namespace > for inlining by doing String search and replace on source level: > replace "org.apache.myfaces.commons" by > "org.apache.myfaces.impl-commons" (or alike) > I already have a working proof-of-concept prototype on my local disk, > but we need the org.apache.myfaces.* --> org.apache.myfaces.commons.* > refactoring first. > > Manfred
I don't think that will quite do it. You still have a versioning problem. As I understand it, this will meant that commons doesn't have a standard release cycle. Without a standard release, the commons API would be in constant flux. At the very least, you would have to tag commons every time you do a release of a project that relies on it. This has its problems too. (Sorry for the length of this :-) ) Suppose there is a method Foo.foo(StringBuffer s) in commons, written by a developer in project A. However, this developer doesn't consider this to be a stable API. He's still working things out. The developer in Project B likes the Foo.foo() method and decides to use it in 1.0. Project B 1.0 is released. The Project A developer decides that passing in a mutable object is dangerous, so he changes it to Foo.foo(String s). Now Project B relies on a method that no longer exists. In fact, he was even relying on the mutability of s. This is generally a bad thing to do, but for some reason, it makes sense for Project B. So what does he do if he needs to fix something in a patch branch? He can check out the tagged version of commons, but what if he needs to patch commons itself? Now he's stuck. The more I think about the weird scenarios, the more I think that commons needs its own stable release. Stan > > > On 2/22/06, Stan Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To reduce the risk of version conflicts and to make the release cycle > > > of core and tomahawk really independent, the shared classes should not > > > be released as JAR, but should automatically be repackaged and > > > "inlined" into impl, tomahawk, tobago, etc. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Manfred > > > > Interesting idea. Do you know of a tool that can easily pull this off? > > > > Stan > >
