Stefan Seifert wrote > >> Do we need this util class in the api at all? (I have no idea, but just >> asking the obvious question) > > perhaps not, but a lot of existing code outside there may use it. and > providing an alternative on javax.json is perhaps easier to migrate to than > completely removing it. > Users have to migrate and they might want to migrate to a different json library than we suggest. Given the number of choices out there having a util class for just one is imho not worth the effort.
I think we should agree on whether we want a new json util class first, then we can look at the versioning problem. Regards Carsten > >> I understand that for semantic versioning we have to increase the major >> version of the api. How do we deal with all the code out there currently >> importing 1.x? Can we find a way that does not require everyone to >> change her code? > > if other classes except JSONUtil are used it's a drop-in replacement, just a > recompile against the latest package version is needed (or a relaxed import > statement for both major versions). but this still is of course a complex > tasks if a lot of bundles depend on the old major version. > > we might change the symbolic name of the new xss bundle to allow parallel > deployment of old and new implementation. > > stefan > -- Carsten Ziegeler Adobe Research Switzerland cziege...@apache.org
