On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:14 PM, George Gastaldi <ggastald(a)redhat.com>wrote:
Let's keep the same package name, as this is a major version
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>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
> 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.
> forge-dev mailing list
Lincoln Baxter, III
"Simpler is better."
forge-dev mailing list