Hi Sebb and Simo, I just created an issue to represent the work for renaming the package and the artifact id. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CHAIN-65
In it, I have attached a potential patch for the rename. Please take a look and let me know if it works for you. Thanks, -Elijah On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>wrote: > Salut, > > > > > There's no need to update both the groupId and tthe artifactId. > > So long as the each unique package name relates to a unique > > groupId:artifactId pair, Maven should be able to resolve dependencies > > correctly. > > > > Yes it does, the issue is not technical but rather keeping coherence > with previous cases, indeed I mentioned past experiences with pool2 > [1] (o.a.c:commons-pool2) and digester3 [2] (o.a.c:digester3) where we > agreed on updating both - what is the reason to make an exception with > chain? > > > > > Changing package name causes lots of work for downstream users. > > > > Yes, I agree, anyway we spoke about the plan of releasing a major > version of the [chain] component... > > > So are you sure that: > > - compatibilty has to be broken in order to support the changes that > > have been made? > > The main big impact is changing the Command/Chain#execute() method > signature supporting the Map<K,V> as context, as we discussed last > year - since we > > > - there aren't any other pending API changes that would require > > another package rename for the next release? > > > > Do you mean components that dependes to chain? > > Just for the record, clirr report of chain2 [3] has been updated on my > personal space, so people can discuss about changes. > > thanks for the feedbacks, > -Simo > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/pool/trunk/pom.xml > [2] > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/digester/tags/DIGESTER3_3_0/pom.xml > [3] http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/chain2/clirr-report.html > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > > > > > There's no need to update both the groupId and tthe artifactId. > > So long as the each unique package name relates to a unique > > groupId:artifactId pair, Maven should be able to resolve dependencies > > correctly. > > > > However it is easier to keep the artifactId in step with the package > name. > > > >> Any objection? > > > > Changing package name causes lots of work for downstream users. > > > > So are you sure that: > > - compatibilty has to be broken in order to support the changes that > > have been made? > > - there aren't any other pending API changes that would require > > another package rename for the next release? > > > >> TIA, > >> -Simo > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CHAIN-58 > >> > >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > >> http://www.99soft.org/ > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
