On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 17:59 +1300, Dennis Sosnoski wrote: > I'd suggest also allowing the option of the service specifying a given > version *or later*, using something like X.YY+ as the notation. Seems > like that would handle the most common dependency cases, without > requiring a proliferation of specific versions.
+1. > Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > >How about X.YY.ZZZZ? where "X" means any thing that starts with "X", > >"X.YY" means anything that starts with "X.YY" and if they want it > >super specific, they specify all digits. Also if nothing is specified > >then we sort the mar's numerically and pick the latest. The reason X.YY was suggested was that that makes it easy / trivial to implement comparison etc. .. just use a float for the version field. We can make it more complicated but it comes with a price of having to do more work. Since Axis2 mar's have to be done specifically for Axis2, what's the difficulty with requiring a specific format?? Plus X.YY.ZZZZ seems very much YAGNI to me. In any case, if we really find it necessary we can add it later very easily. So let's make it X.YY and make it more complicated if we find the need for it (later, beyond 1.0, when we have such a huge proliferation of modules that its a real problem!). Sanjiva.