On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Gary Gregory<[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:40 AM >> To: Commons Users List >> Subject: Re: [VFS] Minimum Java version >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Ralph Goers<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > The packages haven't been changed so far. But this would definitely have >> to >> > be considered whether we would want to take on the package renaming >> right >> > now. >> >> With IO there were only a couple of JDK 1.5 changes that would have >> broken compatibility - so we didn't make those changes and therefore >> haven't had to do a package re-name. If VFS decides to moved to JDK >> 1.5 I would suggest doing compatible changes first and then creating a >> list/patch of incompatible changes for review - then make the decision >> based on how desirable/major/minor those changes are. > > That seems to complicate matters IMO. If we care about having v1 and v2 > co-exist in a Java 5 application, then the v2 packages must to be renamed. So > if that is what we want, let us just bite the bullet and rename now.
I don't really get why you say it complicates matters as being backwards compatible means that you don't need v1 & v2 to co-exist. Niall > Gary > >> >> Niall >> >> > The minimum JDK for 1.0 was 1.3, although it isn't clear that that was >> > correct. The minimum JDK for 2.0 has already been changed to 1.4 since >> some >> > of the code actually required that version to run. >> > >> > Ralph >> > >> > On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:24 AM, James Carman wrote:If >> > >> >> Are they going to change the package name? >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Ralph >> Goers<[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Currently the minimum Java version for VFS 2.0 is 1.4. VFS 2.0 has >> not >> >>> been >> >>> released and the developers are considering making the minimum version >> >>> JDK >> >>> 5. We are interested in getting feedback from the community however >> >>> before >> >>> this change is made. So please respond with your thoughts on this. >> >>> >> >>> Ralph >> >>> >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
