Yep, having 99% of the code in org.apache.geode pkgs with 1% in com.gemstone.gemfire pkgs just to facilitate rolling upgrades seems like something that would be reasonable to discuss on general@incubator.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Bruce Schuchardt <bschucha...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Hey, if we can do this then we should leave versions of exception classes > in com.gemstone.gemfire so we can send them to old GemFire clients! If we > do that and swizzle package names in DataSerializer maybe we'll be able to > support migration of GemFire clients to Geode. That would facilitate > faster adoption of Geode by users of the commercial product. > > > > > Le 7/2/2015 12:28 PM, Sean Busbey a écrit : > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:25 PM, William Markito <wmark...@pivotal.io> >> wrote: >> >> My reading of that is it's specifically for incubation, which indeed is >>> not >>> required based on this thread >>> < >>> >>> https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=dev@geode.incubator.apache.org&q=subject:%22Package+renaming%5C%3F%22&o=newest&f=1 >>> . >>> >>> But for leaving incubation and becoming a TLP my understanding was that >>> it >>> is required. >>> >>> >>> Many projects leave code in packages that are not org.apache for >> backwards >> compatibility. >> >> Roman is correct, if you want to have things outside of org.apache you >> should bring up the matter on general@incubator. Including the reasoning >> for having things outside of org.apache and the long term plan (if any) >> for >> moving things will help avoid a longer set of questions. >> >> >> >
