Preparing next release
Rolf Lear <[email protected]> Mon, 28 May 2012 07:47:18 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.jdom.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi All. I am getting ready to push out version 2.0.2 of the JDOM 2.x stream. Currently in this release is the fix for issue #81 (resetting live FitlerLists after a remove()). This is the only known bug in JDOM 2.x and a 'hotfix' has been available for a few weeks. It is time to push out the official release. Additionally, there are issues/concerns regarding the maven artifiacts. The core issue is that currently it is not possible to 'require' both JDOM 1.x and 2.x in your maven project. There appears to be only one solution to this issue and that is to have different 'artifacts' for JDOM 1 and JDOM 2. Obviously (in hindsight) it should have been done this way originally, but there was simply not enough 'expert' feedback/input/assistance when the decisions were being made, and this mistake is now something that just has to be lived with. As a result, it appears necessary to deploy JDOM 2.0.2 to the maven artifact 'jdom2' (previous versions were deployed to 'jdom'). While this change will make it possible to include both JDOM 1.x and 2.x in your maven projects it will also introduce a number of irritating side-effects: For 'regular' users, note: 1. previous versions of JDOM 2.x were called jdom-2.0.0.jar and jdom-2.0.1.jar. This new version will be called jdom2-2.0.2.jar, and the 'zip' file will be called jdom2-2.0.2.zip For maven users, note: 1. if you have already incorporated JDOM 2.x in your project you should update your dependency to be for artifact jdom2, not jdom 2. ensure any maven project you require that also depends on JDOM aware of this problem... because, if that required project 'upgrades' to the jdom artifact version 2.0.1 (instead of jdom2) then you will get two different versions of jdom 2.x in your classpath, and there is no telling what will result..... So, it is quite possible that by 'solving' the issue relating to requiring both JDOM 1.x and 2.x, that we will instead be introducing even worse problems, but I have been assured that this is the 'only' way to move forward from here. If anyone has comments, concerns, suggestions, I am all ears. Rolf _______________________________________________ To control your jdom-interest membership: http://www.jdom.org/mailman/options/jdom-interest/[email protected]