My preference would be a combination of 1 and 2, but given that there has been no movement in this thread, I'd rather to go for option 1 instead of 0 in the next major.
On 4 July 2017 at 03:06, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> wrote: > Three months have passed so I guess we chose option 0. While this issue > concerns me and prefer options 1 or 2, I do not plan to work on this and > encourage someone to step forward with a pull request or suggest another > approach. > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:11:56PM -0700, Andrew Gaul wrote: >> I want to raise the profile of JCLOUDS-1225[1], Guava 21 compatibility, >> which has troubled several users recently. jclouds uses Guava 16 and >> has compatibility with Guava 16-20. Guava 21 API changes make it >> incompatible with jclouds. We have several plausible solutions: >> >> 0) Ignore the issue >> 1) Move to Guava 18 and have compatibility with Guava 18-21 >> 2) Use reflection or other workarounds to conditionally call newer >> Guava APIs >> 3) Provide some kind of shaded solution to avoid application >> incompatibilities >> >> I loathe to touch the third rail of dependency versioning given the >> history of strong opinions and a reversion which addressed this very >> issue some years back. How can we move forward here? 0 and 1 cause >> user issues while 2 and 3 pollute our code with hacks. >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-1225 >> >> -- >> Andrew Gaul >> http://gaul.org/ > > -- > Andrew Gaul > http://gaul.org/
