<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I will stay defending simplicity and advocate for removing the 3.
This of course means some pain now. But it will also mean a
pain-free future. My opinions below:<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+P6arnTj1gCsnYOMKk53r4EtHfOh_JrLmQMSDXimxZTKr+6Xw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, the artifactids do still contain biojava3, to
match the module names. So changing artifactids could be
another point to add to the list. IMO, they should match the
module names.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed, they should match. Changing the artifactIds shouldn't be a
big problem: people will have to change in their poms both the
version number to 4 and the artifactIds.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+P6arnTj1gCsnYOMKk53r4EtHfOh_JrLmQMSDXimxZTKr+6Xw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>- Changing module names will be a major code
rearrangement. It would probably require some moderately
advanced git wrangling to merge branches and uncommitted
code to the new master. Eclipse users would probably
have to update their projects as well.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This indeed makes things complicated for anyone having unmerged
code. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+P6arnTj1gCsnYOMKk53r4EtHfOh_JrLmQMSDXimxZTKr+6Xw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>- Removing the 3 from package names would require
changing imports on all downstream projects. It might
also cause conflicts with legacy packages which would
break any projects that tried to include both biojava3
and biojava1 (a bad idea to start with, but I know of
one case).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As for the first point it will require some work for developers
moving from Biojava 3 to 4, but I don't see that as a major issue:
changing imports is a matter of some search/replace. As for the
second point I think it's minor, if you wanted to include both
legacy and non-legacy you can still use Biojava 3 for that. Biojava
4+ will be incompatible. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+P6arnTj1gCsnYOMKk53r4EtHfOh_JrLmQMSDXimxZTKr+6Xw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>- Changing package names requires carefully updating
the Cookbook and tutorial by hand</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Can be done with some semi-automated search/replace. I'll volunteer
to do that.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+P6arnTj1gCsnYOMKk53r4EtHfOh_JrLmQMSDXimxZTKr+6Xw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>- All of this requires work from developers which
could be better spent writing code</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I agree it requires some work now. But it will avoid a lot of
confusion forever after. I think it will eventually save time.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Anyway from the points above the only one that I see as a really
tricky one is the issue of unmerged code (which becomes difficult to
merge after renaming modules). I can only suggest that if we give
enough time until the release (until November or December), then
that hopefully will be enough time to merge anything mergeable. Just
before the release we'll then do the module renaming which from that
moment will make merging a lot more complicated (though not
impossible).<br>
<br>
Jose<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>