Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Phil Steitz <[email protected]> wrote: >> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:12: >>> >>>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>>> Hi Phil, >>>>> >>>>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: >>>>> >>>>>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>>> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement" or not. >>>>>>> Basically we say that dbcp 1.3 with JDBC4 will not be backward >>>>>>> compatible. Then why don't we use the new artifactId for this and allow >>>>>>> 1.3 with JDBC3 to be a real drop-in replacement? If somebody works with >>>>>>> ranges, he might get the newer dbcp anyway and wondering about the >>>>>>> incompatibility later. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore we might better do: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3 >>>>>>> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 >>>>>> Thanks Jorg and Grzegorz. Really appreciate the feedback. It is >>>>>> important that we get this right, minimizing confusion / bad impact >>>>>> to maven users and making upgrades both safe and as easy as >>>>>> possible. I was thinking the same way as you, Jörg, on the groupId >>>>>> change for the jdbc4 version. >>>>> Note, that I also changed the artifactId "dbcp vs. dbcp4" ;-) >>>>> >>>>> However, thinking about it, I am not sure if this is necessary and we can >>>>> really keep the artifactId (your first plan). If somebody uses both >>>>> artifacts (by transitive deps), his project is broken anyway. We simply >>>>> have to point out in the website and README, that there are really two >>>>> different commons-dbcp-1.3.jar files. Or is it too much confusion? >>>> That worries ma a little bit, more for Ant than Maven users. >>>> Incompatible jars with the same name in the wild is asking for >>>> trouble (well, like the old days ;). >>>> >>>> Another option, given that we don't have to mess with relocation >>>> poms, is just to use org.apache.commons:dbcp:1.3 for the jdbc4 version. >>> Well, the point was, that such a dbcp-1.3.jar is no longer backward >>> compatible to a dbcp-1.2.x.jar. Therefore I proposed the change of the >>> artifactId for the JDBC4 version in first place. And here are the Maven >>> users affected ;-) >> Did you miss that I cut out the "commons" from the artifactId? >> >> That way we have commons-dbcp-1.3.jar and dbcp-1.3.jar in the wild. >> I guess I liked "dbcp" better than "commons-dbcp4" for the new >> artifactId. IIUC, the only reason we have kept the "commons-" on >> the relocated commons artifactIds for components moved thus far is >> so the relocation poms will work. Since we are not doing that >> here, we can make a clean break and use what seems to me at least a >> more natural artifactId. As always, could be I am missing something. > > This makes sense for people who consume the jars via maven since our > groupid identifies the producer and the m2 repository is organised as > that way - but oputside of maven I think retaining "commons" in the > jar name (and therefore artifactId) makes better sense since it groups > jars from our project together and makes it easier for people to > realise the source of the jar. And I think its better to be consistent > accross commons.
Good points - so what is your recommendation? org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3 commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 or org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp:1.3 commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 or org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp:1.4 commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 or? Phil > > Niall > >> Phil >> >> >>> - Jörg >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
