+1 to your proposal, having read through the examples you give I find them pretty convincing.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 at 12:30 Alex Heneveld <alex.henev...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > ... > > So far, Brooklyn hasn't had an opinion and I liked it that way. > > However when registering OSGi bundles we MUST confirm with OSGi > > versioning there. I'm pretty sure it's NOT desirable to enforce OSGi > > versioning on types, given that few people use it. +1 similar to my previous email I don't think we should have Brooklyn's specs dictated by the fact that we happen to use OSGI > BUT we are moving > > to a world where I think we want type versions (entity versions etc) > > to align with bundle versions: there is really no point in types > > having different versions to their defining bundle! +1 that sounds good to me > > > With examples, my assumption is that people want to use and see > > strings like "1.1-SNAPSHOT". I think this is right - people are more likely to think in terms of versions using Maven than OSGI, and if you are using Maven you probably want to regard the version number of your pom.xml as being the _same_ by definition as the version of the catalog.bom you are developing. > >
