Re: [wildfly-dev] package name change a good idea?

As maintainer of really a lot of jboss-* projects, I can say I don't have any plans to change their package names until/unless a substantial compatibility-breaking change is already necessary. For JBoss Logging in particular I expect to maintain compatibility for the foreseeable future. On 05/02/2013 07:59 AM, Bill Burke wrote: > But doesn't it make it much harder for EAP 6.0 -> Wildfly upstream? > > Also, what about jboss-logging et. al.? Will they be renamed and > packages changed? If so, this creates a headache for projects that > depend on those libraries. For example, I'd want future resteasy > releases to work with both AS 7.1 and Wildfly. I'd have to write an > abstraction layer for any old jboss utility library I reference so my > code would work between as7 and wildfly. > > On 5/2/2013 8:17 AM, Brian Stansberry wrote: >> No. WildFly will be the upstream for a future release of EAP. When that >> happens, those classes, in the existing org.wildfly packages, will be >> used in EAP. >> >> This is conceptually no different than cases where packages like >> org.apache appear in EAP. EAP is a product that is built from a variety >> of upstream projects. WildFly is one of those upstream projects. This >> was the case before the rename as well; the project fka JBoss AS was >> just one of the upstream projects in EAP. >> >> On 5/2/13 7:10 AM, Jaromir Hamala wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> does it mean the same classes will be under different packages in EAP >>> and WildFly? Wouldn't this make a transition from WildFly to EAP harder? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jaromir >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Tomaž Cerar <tomaz.cerar(a)gmail.com >>> <mailto:tomaz.cerar@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> We never said we are going to be renaming existing packages. >>> Especially because we don't want to break compatibly or make back >>> porting harder. >>> >>> What we did agree on is that new stuff should be in new package names. >>> Old packages could be renamed only when the got some big >>> upgrade/change that would break compatibility anyway. >>> >>> -- >>> tomaz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Bill Burke <bburke(a)redhat.com >>> <mailto:bburke@redhat.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Are you sure a package name change is a good idea? Won't it make it >>> harder to pull/push changes upstream and downstream? And create >>> additional work for those who already are the bottleneck in the >>> release >>> process? What does Fedora/RHEL do? >>> -- >>> Bill Burke >>> JBoss, a division of Red Hat >>> http://bill.burkecentral.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:wildfly-dev@lists.jboss.org> >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when >>> there is nothing left to take away.” >>> Antoine de Saint Exupéry >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> wildfly-dev mailing list >>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >>> >> >> >