| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Jason Hunter | Mar 4, 2008 1:38 pm | |
| Victor Toni | Mar 4, 2008 2:54 pm | |
| Rolf | Mar 4, 2008 5:58 pm | |
| Mattias Jiderhamn | Mar 4, 2008 11:38 pm | |
| Mattias Jiderhamn | Mar 4, 2008 11:49 pm | |
| Michael Kay | Mar 5, 2008 1:35 am | |
| Joe Bowbeer | Mar 5, 2008 5:05 am | |
| Victor Toni | Mar 5, 2008 5:24 am | |
| Michael Kay | Mar 5, 2008 7:15 am | |
| Mattias Jiderhamn | Mar 6, 2008 12:03 am | |
| Jason Hunter | Mar 8, 2008 12:43 am | |
| Michael Kay | Mar 8, 2008 1:57 am | |
| Jason Hunter | Mar 8, 2008 2:48 am | |
| Michael Kay | Mar 8, 2008 9:49 am | |
| Timothy Marc | Mar 8, 2008 12:25 pm | |
| Mattias Jiderhamn | Mar 12, 2008 2:02 am | |
| Tatu Saloranta | Mar 12, 2008 9:41 am |
| Subject: | RE: [jdom-interest] Java 5 planning | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Michael Kay (mi...@saxonica.com) | |
| Date: | Mar 8, 2008 9:49:32 am | |
| List: | org.jdom.jdom-interest | |
Yes, this is the potential problem if we alter the public API, which seems to be the "value" as well as the "curse" of a Java 5 jump. It's why I ponder an org.jdom2 package if we do that, so the piles of existing code keep working and new code can be written against the new package. That's not ideal, but it's practical. What do you think, Michael?
Well, that has a downside too: I will have to fork the net.sf.saxon.jdom package to create a net.sf.saxon.jdom2 package, and maintain and test both. That's an extra 1000 or so tests to run each time I make a release. But it's probably the lesser evil.
Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
_______________________________________________ To control your jdom-interest membership: http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/your...@yourhost.com





