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@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@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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev