Let's keep the same package name, as this is a major version change. I
don't think people will run into problems, unless proven otherwise.
On 11/20/2013 04:09 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
As I said in IRC, I worry that allowing both to be on the classpath
would lead to a lot of confusing/partially migrated code.
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabrsam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:gudnabrsam@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi all,
As development continues on Forge 2, I think we had all hoped
the improvements to the parser API would be available in time to
be used for the release. We now have a split between JavaType and
JavaSource which represent the read only and writable portions of
the parser API for a given
class|interface|enum|annotation|package-descriptor. The latest
version is at
https://github.com/forge/java-parser/tree/refactor-hierarchy.
Would it be SOP to proceed by publishing a SNAPSHOT, or...?
Also, since there are quite a few incompatible API changes, I
wonder if it would make sense to change the package name at some
level, e.g. org.jboss.forge.parser2, as well as the Maven artifact
id. By avoiding "jar hell" with multiple versions of the library
on the classpath, this would make it possible for dependent Forge
plugins to switch over gradually if necessary and might avoid
impacting release timelines.
Thanks,
Matt
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:forge-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
--
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev