[jdom-interest] Java 5.0 JDOM Plans?

Michael Kay mike at saxonica.com
Tue Aug 30 14:17:30 PDT 2005

I would vote against. The benefits aren't worth the hassle. People have
quite enough trouble putting the right things on their classpath as it is.
Wait a couple of years until 5.0 is ubiquitous. Perhaps by then people will
even agree whether to call it 5.0 or 1.5.

Michael Kay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdom-interest-bounces at jdom.org 
> [mailto:jdom-interest-bounces at jdom.org] On Behalf Of Jason Hunter
> Sent: 30 August 2005 21:59
> To: Victor Toni
> Cc: jdom-interest at jdom.org; Halloran Timothy J LtCol AFIT/ENGC
> Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] Java 5.0 JDOM Plans?
> Victor Toni wrote:
> > Actually there is no really a need for a fork because the 
> Java compiler 
> > and the compiler from Eclipse have the (not well 
> documented) feature to 
> > compile code with generics for the 1.4 version.
> > As long as only generics and the enhanced for-loop are used 
> there should 
> > be no problem to use the same code base for Java 1.4 and Java 5.
> > I am using it myself and it works very well for me but I 
> might have a 
> > smaller user base ;-)
> It's the covariant return types that we most want, and that JDK 1.4 
> doesn't provide.  This is where you can override a method and 
> return a 
> more specific type than the superclass returns.
> Also, it's not source maintenance I'm really worried about.  
> It's having 
> two versions of jdom.jar in the world.  What happens when 
> your app uses 
> libraries, one of which depends on JDOM regular and one of 
> which depends 
> on JDOM 5?  It doesn't work.  This is why we'd probably need 
> to use new 
> packages containing the version within the package name.
> -jh-
> _______________________________________________
> To control your jdom-interest membership:
> http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/youraddr@you
> rhost.com

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list