Re: [Springframework-developer] Re: Hibernate 3

[Pavel T. <pch...@gm...>]

To me as an outsider and a user of Spring, Jurgen's sounds like the
best strategy so far.

Don't break the existing code simply to add a "2" to the package name,
it really doesn't mean much.

P

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:13:56 +0200, j=FCrgen h=F6ller [werk3AT]
<jue...@we...> wrote:
> We do certainly not intend to drop Hibernate2 any time soon: It's too ubi=
quitous, and will be for some time to come. BTW, we also support both iBATI=
S SQL Maps 1.3.1 and 2.0: There, we have two different APIs in different iB=
ATIS packages, so both reside in our "orm.ibatis" package.
>=20
> From my point of view, let's simply create a new "orm.hibernate3" package=
, and keep the old "orm.hibernate" package as-is for Hibernate 2.1. While r=
enaming the old package might seem appropriate in terms of consistently app=
lying the Hibernate version number, I don't believe it adds much value: If =
it's still called "hibernate", we can simply point out that it refers to cl=
assic Hibernate, i.e. 2.1. That gives us full backwards compatibility, just=
 with add-on support for Hibernate3.
>=20
> Finally, Hibernate3 is still alpha. I'm quite strongly against shipping s=
upport classes for alpha software, particularly if it's such a large bunch =
as for Hibernate3. We can certainly add such classes as "orm.hibernate3" pa=
ckage to the sandbox, but they should remain there until there's at least a=
 beta release out.
>=20
> Juergen