-1 on renaming packages. That's too much of a kludge isn't it?
Jason T. Greene wrote:
Manik Surtani wrote:
>
> On 18 Aug 2008, at 19:37, Bela Ban wrote:
>
>> +100. Do you suggest a bridge/adapter approach ?
>
> This could be an alternate approach. We are talking about an adapter
> for making 2.x and 3.x compatible with 1.x interfaces; it would be
> much easier to do the same to make 3.x compatible with 2.x.
> Potentially helps to keep the core 3.x APIs clean so if people want
> to use 3.x directly they have a chance to use cleaner APIs.
>
> The drawback is that everyone uses the adapter and never the cache
> directly, which beats the purpose of the new APIs altogether.
>
> Thoughts?
IMO the easiest, most reliable way to do this is to rename our
packages when we decide to break BC. It is also a strong incentive not
to break BC ;)
i.e. org.jboss.cache3.x
Then we can provide an optional api emulation jar that has the old
packages. No classloading magic needed. Doing this even allows for the
possibility of simultaneous usage of both versions.
--
Bela Ban
Lead JGroups / Clustering Team
JBoss - a division of Red Hat