Re: naming library packages
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
Isn't it what they call 'generics'?
Well. You'd like 1.5 ;-)
Yes it is, thats why I wrote the bindings in 1.5 originally and then
backported.
Currently the 1.5 bindings are not backwards compatible with 1.4 ones. I
might be able to fix this, but that means you want the 1.4 ones
installed at the same time as the 1.5 ones when you have some apps
written against each bindings. They both work with the 1.5 VMs though.
I also think its possible that even when 1.5 is in main, people will
still want to write for 1.4-only for a while.
Why?
Another possibility is one package where you split the jar files:
yourlib-commons.jar
yourlib-j5se.jar
yourlib-j2se1.4.jar
there's not much common code, or rather, there are small differences
between most of the classes. So you would have libdbus-j5se.jar or
libdbus-j2se1.4.jar.
This was my original question, given I want to do this what is the best
way: 2 packages, 1 package 2 versions, 1 package 2 jars (and why is this
better than 2 packages), and if multiple packages/jars, what is the
accepted naming scheme (I suggeseted libdbus-java and libdbus-java2,
you've suggested libdbus-j2se and libdbus-j5se). It's this latter point
I mainly wanted opinions on.
Another remark: IMHO a library should not depend on a runtime... any
way, this would require a change of the Debian Java Policy.
I believe the debian policy states that they should do:
"Java libraries must depend on the needed runtime environment
(java1-runtime and/or java2-runtime) but should not depend (only
suggest) java-virtual-machine."
(from http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/java-policy/x105.html)
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
http://www.matthew.ath.cx/
Reply to: