On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:27:00 -0400, Marco Leise <marco.le...@gmx.de> wrote:
Am Thu, 29 May 2014 18:35:49 +0200
schrieb Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>:
On 29/05/14 16:47, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> javax was the experimental branch for Java's experimental code. Now
javax.xml is
> PERMANENT.
Point taken. That said, I fear that _any_ module or package that gets
widely
used carries such a risk.
But why didn't they change it?
o Didn't they make it clear enough that a rename is coming?
o Was it known, but impractical to change all Java code?
(I.e. closed source byte code files would break)
o Were both the original xml implementation and javax.xml used
too much to replace one with the other? (Assuming the APIs
were different.)
Too much customer code would break I think.
By saying up front "this is experimental, expect breakage," the policy is
clear, and complaints are shrugged off, nobody has anyone to blame but
themselves.
You may argue "Yeah, but javax was supposed to mean experimental," true,
but it's not as nicely spelled out.
Note that D is pretty much a static-library only system (there are some
tinkerings with shared libraries, but nothing official). New code means
recompile, so the USER of your app cannot break things by installing a new
druntime. Java is different, so I don't know if they even could have done
that.
-Steve
