James Carman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>>> My feeling is that if we are upgrading to Java 5 then we should do it
>>> correctly. Go ahead and break compatibility where required. In that view
>>> the changes done to the Comparables were done correctly. I susp
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
>> My feeling is that if we are upgrading to Java 5 then we should do it
>> correctly. Go ahead and break compatibility where required. In that view the
>> changes done to the Comparables were done correctly. I suspect they will
>> cause very
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 06:35
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VFS] Analysis of binary compatibility breaks between 1.0 and
> 2.0; release strategy
>
>
>
On Nov 17, 2010, at 2:54 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 17 November 2010 07:17, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>
>> I'm not suggesting we change these. Since we are adopting Java 5 I would
>> prefer to change these now and move forward.
>
> To change or not to change? Sorry, cannot understand the last paragrap
On 17 November 2010 07:17, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:19 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 17 November 2010 00:06, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
>> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why the tool didn't catch it, but a few methods now return
>>> Map where they previously returned Map. I didn't check f
On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:19 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 17 November 2010 00:06, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure why the tool didn't catch it, but a few methods now return
>> Map where they previously returned Map. I didn't check for
>> generics other than "Map<".
>
> Surely these are
On 17 November 2010 00:06, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
wrote:
> I'm not sure why the tool didn't catch it, but a few methods now return
> Map where they previously returned Map. I didn't check for
> generics other than "Map<".
Surely these are equivalent at run-time?
Generics are a compile-time
I'm not sure why the tool didn't catch it, but a few methods now return
Map where they previously returned Map. I didn't check for
generics other than "Map<".
Ralph
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:21 PM, sebb wrote:
> Clirr reports the following problems when comparing the codebases
> (prior to the v
Clirr reports the following problems when comparing the codebases
(prior to the vfs2 package rename)
1) Selectors: Changed from interface to class
This contains only constants. The interface was not actually
implemented by any VFS classes; the constants were referenced using
the class name
If any
