[jdom-interest] Java 5.0 JDOM Plans?

Jason Hunter jhunter at xquery.com
Tue Aug 30 10:42:31 PDT 2005

Halloran Timothy J LtCol AFIT/ENGC wrote:

> Your approach 2) seems the only viable approach to support a more "like"
> Java 5 interface.  Wrappers with covarent return types would fix most of
> the problems, such as:
> package org.jdom5;
> import java.util.List;
> import org.jdom.Content;
> public class Element extends org.jdom.Element {

Uh huh, I think the benefit received by having the org.jdom5.Element 
wrapper is less than the confusion it breeds.

> But this introduces LOTS OF problems...the worst of which is backwards
> compatibility.  Hence, your approach 2) seems the only possible way
> ahead (if a Java 5 interface is deemed desirable).  Confusion can't be
> helped, but potential runtime conflicts can be resolved by having two
> different jars and ensuring complete backwards compatibility with the
> current 1.0 interface (the test suite can help here).
> Are you open to an experimental CVS module to try this out?  Prehaps
> putting in the contributions you have to date?  I'm even willing to host
> it at CMU (if that is helpful),  I'd just need a tar of the "jdom"
> module -- so history isn't lost.  I guess--if there is no interest--I
> could do the transition on my own and host it--at least for my own use
> :-) and my students.

If we want to go this way, it's easy for jdom.org to host it.  I've just 
wanted to resist starting the official "fork" even under the title of 

So let me ask:

How many people would welcome a jdom5.jar that's built for Java 5?

Have any other libraries followed this "forked" path?  How has it worked 
for them?


More information about the jdom-interest mailing list