On 4/9/06, Jason Dwyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMHO, given that the 1.2 line has been in the works for some time, and > any effort to repackage the class tree will almost certainly lead to > changes ( trivial bug fixes, etc), why not stick to the org.objectstyle > packaging for the 1.2 final release, and move on ot org.apache from > there? > > another consideration in the naming scheme is to align the version to > specific java specs. ie: release 1.5 corresponds to ( and provides an > implementation compatible with) java 1.5. > > Well just to be clear, nobody is talking about doing a dual version. While I did suggest 1.2-apache, I was quickly and rightly talked out of it :)
What is proposed is to make a release that is API-"equivalent", but with a new package structure. Development on a new release would begin immediately thereafter on a version that is not API-equivalent or API-compatible. The idea is that we provide an upgrade path. If the org.apache release becomes " 2.0", a hypothetical "3.0" release is going to be a long way off. A 1.2->3.0upgrade would be difficult for users, because of new package names AND new class/method names. A 1.2->2.0->3.0 upgrade would allow users a more controlled upgrade path should they choose to take it. By the way, I disagree with the idea of versioning along side the JDK. That may make sense for aspect-related stuff, etc, but I don't see Cayenne going "1.5 only" anytime soon, and even if it were to, I don't see it going "Mustang-only" ever, since Mustang has few API changes that would be worth breaking backward compatibility over. Cris
