Re: Maven Artifact JDK Suffix
От | Mark Rotteveel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Maven Artifact JDK Suffix |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6b15260c69e1adcefcd1d90b70211c8f@imap.procolix.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Maven Artifact JDK Suffix (Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Maven Artifact JDK Suffix
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 12:04:54 +0300, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote: >> a JDK 9. Why not name it X.jre8 so that we're ready for when that day >> comes? > > The idea is "unsuffixed is the latest version while others being > second-class citizens". > When jdk9 comes, a new project is added for jre8, and unsuffixed > becomes jre9 only. > Well, I think we can make jre8 explicit and avoid unsuffixed versions. > I do not have strong option there. But it makes it less intuitive; a newer version of the same dependency will suddenly stop working with an incompatible class version error. What if I am on the latest jre8 version when Java 9 is out, and I need to go back to an earlier version: then I need to track when the switch from unsuffixed Java 8 to suffixed Java 8 version occurred to be able to downgrade (granted, that is a bit less common scenario). On the other hand, for Jaybird somewhere in the past someone outside the Firebird project released Jaybird 2.1.6 on maven without a suffix, and it has still a relatively big share of the downloads. I am unsure why that is. I am still considering whether I should **also** release the highest version unsuffixed (next to the suffixed version). Mark
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: