[jdom-interest] & in namespace

[Jason Hunter]

> I would suggest first a 1.0.1 bug-fix release to keep compatibility for 
> older projects. Based on this release JDOM could be migrated to use 
> generics for a 2.0 release. One could assume that until this task is 
> complete many more migrations to "Tiger" would have happened.
> Basically this is more of a management issue for which I would identify 
> two options:
> a) keep two branches: "classic" and "generic" and apply changes when 
> appropriate to both
> b) updates happen only in the "generic" tree, a tool such as Retroweaver 
> (http://retroweaver.sourceforge.net/) could be used to make it available 
> for older Java version.
> 
> I am really looking forward to have generics in JDOM and would even step 
> forward for this task ;-)
> 
> Victor

Considering we're in maintenance mode, it wouldn't be too onerous to 
just maintain two branches.  However, I'm not actually worried about 
*my* pain so much as each user's.  If we use the same package name for 
the Generics version as we have now, isn't that a recipe for DLL hell? 
Two completely incompatible versions masquerading as the same thing.

Which is why, in a post a while ago, I wondered if the answer was to do 
org.jdom5 packaging or something like that.

-jh-