It's probably also worth pointing out before we get too caught up in the "doom and gloom" situation of incompatibilities that we need to start making all commons releases backwards compatible in order for end-users to depend upon them. That will probably eliminate many of the issues of incompatibility between core and tomahawk.
It still leaves the possiblity of the end-user installing two different versions of commons. Maybe we can install a phase listener to warn the user when that happens :) On 2/17/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/17/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And at some future point, we'll probably also incorporate a > > > "repackaging" step into one of these (I'd suggest core, probably) to > > > give the two commons versions different namespaces. > > > > What do you mean by this? > > It's what we've talked about before. > > core depending on org.myfaces.core.commons (maybe core-commons.jar) > and tomahawk depending on org.myfaces.commons (maybe > tomahawk-commons.jar). > > Thus, it's possible for core-commons.jar != tomahawk-commons.jar, and > core and tomahawk can be upgraded independently of each other. > > Manfred's "Scenario" message in this thread shows why it's necessary > for anyone who's forgotten. >
