>* With version numbers, you're not precluding users from partitioning >their libraries into directories, whereas without version numbers, >you're forcing them to.
But by embedding the version number in the file name, you are effectively eliminating the value of using a directory structure - so this isn't really a valid argument. >* With version numbers, users immediately know which version they're >using without having to compare file size or extract some META-INF >files to know its version -- let's go for simplicity. Same applies to the directory structure approach. >* The argument that you have to update your library dependencies is a >weak one, imho. ...until you have to go through and modify every single applet you have deployed, which could be quite cumbersome. I know it will for me, because I'm going to have to change every page in the demos and tutorials. Sure, I could manually strip out the version number from the file names - but, if I'm going to need to do that, why bother to include it in the first place? Consider this: even if you were concurrently working on projects requiring different versions of Pivot, you'd probably just have a lib directory under each one that contained the right version. When would you ever want to put them in the same physical directory?
