On 18.05.2007, at 21:56, Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen wrote:
Stephen Colebourne skrev den 18-05-2007 18:37:
Changing the package name would have been, and still is, backwards
incompatible. As such it is unacceptable for such a widely used
package as [beanutils]. I am -1 to arbitrarily changing the
package name.
We really need a prime directive in commons. Don't break backwards
compatibility. Every time we do we cause problems down the line -
its simple due to our status as the lowest of low libraries. And
again, this also emphasises that each commons library works much
better when it stands alone - no dependencies.
I agree that it is important, actually crucial. People trust in
these modules, and _if_ they break something when upgrading it is
very prominently displayed on the download page etc. I think it
would be a bad idea to deliberatly introduce such things.
I suggest marking the offending methods as deprecated for the 1.x
series, and schedule them for removal in the 2.x series.
Well, then let's create a 2.x branch and do a release without the
classes *now*. No problem with that. Then it is communicated and
people can choose. But doing *nothing* just because of binary
compatibility is silly. Especially as no one *has* to upgrade
libraries. And checking release notes if you do can't hurt if you
upgrade.
Just let's get rid of this mess.
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
