On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:46:26 -0000, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Major releases, i.e. e.g. from 1.x to 2.x are there not to be backward > > compatible. Especially, I would even consider it dangerous to replace > > a 1.x version with 2.x without checks just to have a newer version. > > Semantics could have chages. Consider collections from 2. to 3. What > > was done there was perfectly alright. > > If by this you are suggesting that [collections] 2 and 3 were designed to be > incompatible then you are wrong. [collections] v3 'moved' classes to new > packages, but _left_the_old_ones_deprecated_.
Thanks for clarifying. Did not know the old ones co-existed. > Some months later I discovered an unintended incompatability in > IteratorUtils.EMPTY_ITERATOR, which can be solved by migrating to the > 2.1.1/3.1 combination of versions. > > My point is that they were desinged to be compatible from 2 to 3. Isn't this almost like having an internal vesioning like Daniel suggested? Oliver --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
