> From: Farr, Aaron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The problem is greater when the package does not include the > version number in the file name. It's one thing if you have: > > avalon-framework-4.1.4.jar > avalon-framework-4.1.5.jar > > versus > > jdom.jar > jdom.jar > > or whatever. If the packaged files use a standard naming > scheme which includes the version numbers, then I think we > should be in the clear.
I think the issue is that instead of having: org.xml.dom.Document in jdom-1.0.jar org.xml.dom.Document in jdom-2.0.jar we should have: org.xml.dom1.Document in jdom-1.0.jar org.xml.dom2.Document in jdom-2.0.jar Problem being that if you have the situation I outlined, with A,B,C, A dependent on B and C, B dependent on C, there's simply nothing that can save you if C changes in a backwards-incompatible way, since as long as A and B communicate using classes or facilities provided by C, they must use the same C. /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
