Adrian Crum wrote: > There is no reason for you to pack up your marbles and go home. > > The question is: There are classes in org.ofbiz.base.util that don't belong > there because they are data types, not utility classes. What do you think > about moving them to a different package? > > And I *have* considered the downstream user - I am one of them. Updating a > patch is not too much to ask in my opinion.
You maintain your downstream changes a certain way. Others may do it differently. And, you are special, as am I, and anybody else who has actual real commit rights. We are way above the curve when it comes to upgrading and using ofbiz. There could be other people who are not so lucky. You've said that doing a simple rename would solve this problem for downstream users. Why, yes, that is correct. But how will they know to do that rename? When the next version of ofbiz is released, the classes will not exist at the new location, and their code won't compile, or it will fail at runtime. Where will they go to find out how to fix their code? Will there be release notes? Will you update them to list what has to be done to fix their files? If you did it has I suggested, then have javac give a deprecation warning at compile time, and log a message at runtime if it happens to be used, then it would make it much easier for downstreams to see the problem, and it would also let their code continue to work transparently, instead of just breaking stuff from the get-go.
