Ah ok. Just wanted to make sure as it makes a big difference. :) There would still be room for plenty of discussion on exact changes to make, limits and so on.
-+ Tatu +- On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Christopher Currie <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry, editing mistake, that should have been *not* necessary, and in fact > not desired. StringTemplate 4 changed co-ordinates as a patch release (from > 4.0.2 to 4.0.3) causing headaches in class paths and eventually needing to > use the dependency plugin's "banned dependencies" feature. > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:14 PM Tatu Saloranta <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Christopher Currie < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think that if Jackson doesn't take the opportunity to cull the dead API >> weight at version 3, it will never happen. I support the proposal to make >> the Java 8 update in version 3, and shed the API as needed. I also agree >> that changing the Maven co-ordinates is necessary. >> >> >> I was actually thinking & suggesting not changing Maven co-ordinates, due >> to that significantly slowing uptake of 3.x. As of now, Jackson 2.x is only >> about 2x as widely used as 1.x, after 4 years. >> >> Question of Maven coordinates is tied to the question of Java package as >> well. If only Maven group id was changed, upgrade could still be simple -- >> only pom change needed. The big difference is with Java package, as >> changing that will require sizable (if very mechnical, at least with 1.x -> >> 2.x) changes. >> >> But if only changing Maven coordinates, there's the nasty possibility of >> classpath clashes; in fact, this can be worse than not changing Maven >> package. So I guess it's both Maven and Java package, or neither. Just one >> does not make as much sense. >> >> Anyway. I don't feel huge need to make drastic API changes so it is quite >> possible to go 3.0 but only really base that on JDK baseline change, and >> not on public API change. That is one of options. >> >> -+ Tatu +- >> >> >> >> >> Christopher >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:22 AM Tatu Saloranta <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Based on feedback, I think that going Java 8 should indeed be signalled >> with major version upgrade. >> But unlike with 1.x -> 2.x, I think this can and should be done without >> changing Maven/Java-package coordinates. This would allow behavior similar >> to minor-version update for users who are already on Java 8 (which I >> suspect is vast majority); but signal other users that there is something >> of _potential_ compatibility problem. >> >> Now: from that point, we have two choices wrt API changes: >> >> 1. Consider 2.9 -> 3.0 a minor change, and keep even @deprecated public >> API (internal, non-public api is not guaranteed to stay with minor >> releases, but we try to give at least one minor version grace-period for >> those) >> 2. Take the opportunity to do little more changes. Most likely: >> - Remove deprecated (at least by 2.8) public methods -- there are some >> that date back to 2.0, esp. in `JsonFactory` >> - Change some of the defaults. For example: >> o Seems like majority of users prefer `FAIL_ON_UNKNOWN_PROPERTIES` >> to be `false` (1.x and 2.x have it as `true`) >> - Make minor changes to public API that really make sense (that is, >> similar to bug fix) but that are not binary or source compatible; mostly to >> Tree Model (JsonNode): >> o Existing `void` methods that ought to be chainable; add `this` >> return type >> o Existing methods that do not declare exceptions but should: some >> JsonNode methods >> >> My personal leanings would be towards (2), with some or all of proposed >> changes; but I do not assume all users agree. Resulting breakage is nasty >> if you are hit by it; especially so for transitive dependencies. >> >> Now: if and when 2.9 will proceed with Java 7, no changes would be made >> until end of the year (that is, at earliest january 2017 for master). But I >> would create a Wiki page to collect plans for changes to make, so that for >> once these may be discussed a priori. I also plan to send update summaries >> when significant changes/additions are made. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -+ Tatu +- >> >> ps. Anyone with insight on Android's Java 8 plans would be very welcome >> to share those. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "jackson-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "jackson-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "jackson-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jackson-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jackson-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
