atom feed21 messages in org.jdom.jdom-interestRe: [jdom-interest] jdom 2.0 with gen...
FromSent OnAttachments
Thomas SchefflerJul 21, 2011 7:08 am 
J DaltonJul 21, 2011 8:04 am 
Olivier JaquemetJul 21, 2011 8:23 am 
Brenner, MikeJul 21, 2011 8:37 am 
Paul LibbrechtJul 21, 2011 8:50 am 
Bob JacobsenJul 21, 2011 9:23 am 
Alves, Licinio S CIV NUWC NWPTJul 21, 2011 2:06 pm 
Rolf LearJul 21, 2011 4:18 pm 
Michael KayJul 21, 2011 4:29 pm 
Rolf LearJul 21, 2011 4:55 pm 
Noel GrandinJul 22, 2011 6:25 am 
Rolf LearJul 22, 2011 8:43 am 
Jason HunterJul 22, 2011 1:33 pm 
Noel GrandinJul 25, 2011 12:57 am 
Jason HunterAug 7, 2011 6:32 pm 
Brad CoxAug 8, 2011 4:10 am 
jdomAug 8, 2011 5:52 am 
RolfAug 8, 2011 6:12 am 
RolfAug 8, 2011 7:12 am 
Joe BowbeerAug 8, 2011 9:22 am 
Brad CoxAug 10, 2011 4:17 pm 
Subject:Re: [jdom-interest] jdom 2.0 with generics
From:Brenner, Mike (
Date:Jul 21, 2011 8:37:01 am

I agree -- go forward with backwards compatibility.

-----Original Message----- From: [] On
Behalf Of Olivier Jaquemet Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:24 AM To: J Dalton Cc: Thomas Scheffler; Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] jdom 2.0 with generics

To that regard, I like the approach taken by several libraries when making important change with backward compatibility, specially for Generics. They change the package name ! That way, the only thing required for the developper wanting to use the new version is a simple modification of the import directive + the generics modification is required. And code using the older library can be left untouched.

For example, apache commons lang 3.0 which has been release two days ago is using this approach. import org.apache.commons.lang -> import org.apache.commons.lang3 It allows older version of the library to seat next to the new one without any glitches.

So +1 for JDom 2 with generics with a package name change.

On 21/07/2011 17:05, J Dalton wrote:

If it breaks backward compatibility, surely those who do not want to (or are unable to) change their code could continue to use the earlier versions.

That JDOM doesn't use generics has unfortunately become an argument against using JDOM.

2011/7/21 Thomas Scheffler<>:

Am 21.07.2011 15:01, schrieb Noel Grandin:


Would there be any interest in doing a JDOM 2.0 targeting java 1.5+, but changing return types to use generics?

I'd be happy to produce some patches, they're pretty straightforward.

And I know I'd appreciate cleaning up some of code with better type checking.


this topic has been around some time now. And the main concern was that this change would break backward compatibility. Beside that using generics would be great, as JAVA 5 itself is unsupported since 2009 now.

So if current code runs without changes: +1 from me.