just reviewed the original email again...it talks about xyz-00.0000.mar hence the confusion.
So, we should go with say security-1.23.mar. Right? just to be absolutely clear. -- dims On 12/31/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > > > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
