[jdom-interest] JDOM not using raw typing

[Mattias Jiderhamn]

Can't we get 1.01 first and *then* start discussing generics/Java 5
seriously?


Endre Stølsvik wrote:
> Jason Hunter wrote:
>> This has been discussed a lot lately.  The reason is to add support
>> for Java 5 means removing support for people on Java versions
>> previous to that.  You can make two releases, but that has the
>> potential to cause dependency problems in larger projects.  So for
>> now you have a few warnings as the price for Java 1.4 people to be
>> able to use JDOM.  :)
>>
>
> Well, since I didn't get any response to this the last time, I'll shove
> this in again:
>
> Using legacy code in new code:
>
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/extra/generics/legacy.html
>   " ... the assignment is legal, but it generates an unchecked warning.
> The warning is needed, because the fact is that the compiler can't
> guarantee its correctness. "
>   " Now let's consider the inverse case. Imagine that Fooblibar.com
> chose to convert their API to use generics, but that some of their
> clients haven't yet. ... "
>
> Generifying old code, while keeping backwards compat:
>
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/extra/generics/convert.html
>   " Earlier, we showed how new and legacy code can interoperate. Now,
> it's time to look at the harder problem of "generifying" old code. "
>   " You also need to ensure that the revised API retains binary
> compatibility with old clients. This implies that the erasure of the API
> must be the same as the original, ungenerified API. In most cases, this
> falls out naturally, but there are some subtle cases. ... "
>
> javac -source=1.5 -target=1.3  ?
>
>
> Also, one could use org.jdom2 as package name for the 1.5 version,
> although obviously utterly loosing compatibility between code coded
> against v1 and other code coded against v2 - but I think even this
> could be handled using a simple "converter" between a v1 DOM and a v2
> DOM, or the other way.
>
>>
>> Hielke Hoeve wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> I was wondering if there is any reason why JDOM isn't using raw
>>> typing. I'm making a configuration parser for my own open source
>>> project but I'm using somewhat strict settings in Eclipse and I have a
>>> lot of warnings in my project about Lists being a raw type. I could
>>> add @SuppresWarnings to silence Eclipse about that particular line but
>>> I'd rather fix the "problem" than hiding it.
>>>
>>> If there isn't any reason I was wondering where I could commit or in
>>> another way present a JDOM version that does. I have attempted to
>>> alter the nightly build to use typing but it's quite a task.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> Hielke Hoeve