On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Yes configuration2 will be incompatible, it's a complete refactoring of the > API. The package was already changed. My concern is about the artifactId > causing a confusion on the actual version of the artifact.
We're all going that route eventually. I'm not a big fan of changing the package name without changing the artifactId. To me, it's inconsistent, since any future major version number changes would require that you change the artifactId. Then, you'd have commons-configuration:commons-configuration with package org.apache.commons.configuration org.apache.commons:commons-configuration with package org.apache.commons.configuration2 org.apache.commons:commons-configuration3 with package org.apache.commons.configuration3 I would rather it be consistent. But, that's just me. I certainly don't speak for everyone. Either way, the fully-qualified artifactId (groupId:artifactId) needs to change and so does the package because of the binary incompatibility. As long as those two change, we avoid the "jar hell" situation (even inside Maven2). --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
