On 8 Nov 2004, at 23:58, Brett Porter wrote:
I've been meaning to reply to this in kind.
If a project splits itself into three, should gump really try and map projects depending on an older version to these? I know you are experimenting with the latest and greatest, but this might be the point where you start maintaining beanutils-1.6.x and beanutils-*-1.7.x in gump and projects can migrate on their own (gump could encourage those left on the old one to do so, but not require it to keep running).
this was discussed at the time and the consensus was that the right thing for gump to do was to move everyone onto the new jar's. (unless i've missed something) gump's always aimed at bringing the latest and greatest code together.
a primary reason why beanutils was split into a modular jar system was so that gump (and anyone else trying to use the latest versions) would not run into difficulties with the two incompatible series of commons collections releases. at the time, it seemed best to migrate all projects (rather than having rely on nagging messages) and i think that this decision has been proved right.
i suppose that the bigger issue is who owns the gump descriptors: the individual projects or gump...
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
