I'm much less concerned with the package name than I am that it appear to be part of the VFS subproject. By necessity, it won't be binary compatible - and presumably users won't interact with the commons vfs code directly anyway.
Ralph On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on Java > 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based versions that do break > binary compatibility. > > We can retain the VFS name and brand for the project, but I'd prefer > o.a.c.vfs<n> to be for VFS2 based work and to create o.a.c.filesystem (or > fs) for Java 7 FileSystem-based work. > > Thoughts? > > Gary > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5 December 2011 22:45, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Hi Gary, >>> >>> Gary Gregory wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All: >>>> >>>> I've made several improvements to VFS over the last couple of months >> which >>>> feels ready for a release soon. >>>> >>>> One important internal change is that the builds runs almost all unit >>>> tests >>>> :) >>> >>> I saw your efforts and this is really a great improvement! Thanks! >>> >>>> I've not found an easy way to embed a WebDAV server in the tests like >>>> JackRabbit, which would be nice to do. >>> >>> Definitely :) >>> >>>> I know Ralph just mentioned thoughts of a VFS3 on top of Java 7, which >> is >>>> great news indeed. This feels like it needs a new name instead of a >>>> version change though because the change is so radical (and nice.) >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> I'd keep the name, it's a brand here and if we name it VFS3 and document >>> that it is based on Java 7 technology, so why change it? >> >> The current release targets Java 1.5 and uses the package name vfs2; >> the name was changed from o.a.c.vfs because 2.x is not binary >> compatible with 1.x. >> >> If there is to be any development of VFS 2.x on Java 1.5 or Java 1.6 >> that requires breaking binary compatibility again (which is not >> impossible), this could cause a clash with the package name for the >> new component VFS3. >> >> Ideally there should be a different package name prefix for each the >> two components; failing that, at least they must use different numeric >> suffix ranges. >> Otherwise users may not be able to upgrade to Java 7 cleanly. >> >> Maven ids also need to be distinct, but that is less of an issue (for >> once). >> >>> - Jörg >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0 > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
