Peter Donald wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:13, Greg Steuck wrote:What is the failure that you are refering to? I would suggest that the usage of version 1.0 is less to do with functional untility and musch more to the degree of rigure applied to implemetation and service versioning.
Versioning in Avalon.Our initial approach was versioned interfaces but that ultimately failed and everyone used the 1.0 version except in a few rare cases.
The only place in Avalon where versioning I see applies is component
versioning. But we have better ways of determining component
compatibility: component roles. So, instead of creating versioned
interfaces we simply create *different* interfaces (java
interfaces).
So effectively thats what we have moved towards.
In the context - who is we ? :-)
+1
Jakob> this (.NET) I think ressembles more the shared object (orVersioning of libraries is something that is important IMHO. We do it in some cases with jars that conform to the JDK1.3 "Optional Package" Specification (aka 1.2 Extension mechanism). And I thing we should version libraries to a greater deal. The main reason is that then the container can detect and deal with versioning conflicts that may only become apparent when application is running otherwise.
Jakob> dll) view, where you first load the shared object and then
Jakob> look into the shared object to find the function pointer (or
Jakob> in our case the type).
Anybody else feeling that those are hacks from pre-historic era of
weakly typed dynamic libraries don't apply anymore?
in terms of jar version management (which is seperate concern from the management of component implemetation versining and versioned services).
Cheers, Steve.
-- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:mcconnell@;osm.net http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
