Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:05, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 15.06.2010 14:49, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
What if you change the semantic of a function call without changing the
signature ?
I guess that's an incompatible change in theory, though still binary
compatible. So we can't limit to binary compatibility for versioning imho,
which mean there is some semantic involved.
Yes, agreed, this is in fact an API change - and therefore requires an
update in the exported package version.
Nevertheless: I would say, that changing the semantics of a method is
dangerous, just because it involves no change on the invocation level.
So I would think, that changing the semantics of a method is even more
dangerous than an incompatible API change.
If you expect the user to take an action when upgrading, it means there is a
(somewhat) incompatible change imho.
Really depends on the kind of upgrade.
Consider for example the Web Console upgrading to the next JQuery
release. This would require a new Web Console release with an increased
bundle version number.
But since nothing in the API changes as a consequence of this JQuery
upgrade, we must not increase the exported package version number !
Unless the existing plugins can't be made to work with the new JQuery ...
In that case, a version bump would be required.
JQuery is not part of the exported Java package org.apache.felix.webconsole.
How to apply OSGi concepts in general for JavaScript is a very
interesting subject. Until there's an established standard, I suspect
the only thing which can be done is to use the bundle version.
Justin
BTW: [1] is highly recommended reading !
Regards
Felix
[1] http://www.osgi.org/wiki/uploads/Links/SemanticVersioning.pdf
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:36, Alasdair Nottingham <n...@apache.org> wrote:
+1 a package version change reflects a change to the package, not a
change to the implementation.
On 15 June 2010 13:27, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On 15.06.2010 14:20, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:15, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
On 15.06.2010 13:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Usually, users would use a range, so it should not matter that much I
think.
Yes and no.
The problem is, that the bundle version may evolve independently of the
API export version.
Consider for example that we decide to release a 4.0 version of the Web
Console in the future whereas the API did not change at all. In this
case, we should still export the API as 3.1 to not break existing
plugins which import the API as [3.1,3.2).
And why would be bump the version if there's no change ?
Where's the change ? The Web Console bundle exports API and contains
implementation. As such the Web Console bundle attaches a version to the
exported package and to the bundle itself.
But: We must not mix the semantic of the version of the API export with
the semantic of the bundle version, which also includes implementation
code.
Even if the
package did not actually change, if there was a need for the major
version
to be bumped, i'd rather reflect that on the package version as well, to
make sure people are aware of those major changes (and change their
version
range if needed).
No, please not.
The export package version has semantic meaning to the importers (users,
implementors) of the exported package.
The bundle version on the other hand has semantic meaning to the (human)
users of the web console at large.
If we upgrade the export version of the package, just because we
modified some internal implementation, this will break plugins for
nothing worth -- except making (human) users and administrators unhappy
because we require them to upgrade plugins ...
Granted, if the internal implementation causes the API to change we must
increment the version of the exported package.
But in no case should the version of an exported package be incremented
just because the internal implementation changed without influence on
the exported package contents....
Regards
Felix
For example, from 2.x to 3.x, the UI has been redesigned, but the
package
could have been backward compatible (is it ?). But even if it is
compatible, i'd rather upgrade it to 3.x, because i'd rather have users
be
aware that they need to rewrite the plugins to adapt to the new ui ...
I've used the pom.version for 3.1.0, which an be change afterward if
we
want
to keep at 3.1.0 for the package version for future releases.
Ok.
Regards
Felix
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 13:15, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
On 15.06.2010 12:58, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Wow, I was expecting the package to be derived from the project
version.
No, because I don't want to increase the export version on each
bundle
release. The downside is, that it must not be forgotten to be
increased
when there is some change in the API.
Regards
Felix
I'll fix that now.
Cancelling this release again. ...
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:46, Felix Meschberger <
fmesc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi,
On 15.06.2010 11:47, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
I would like to call a new vote on the following subproject
releases:
webconsole 3.1.0
Still exports web console API 3.0 ...
Regards
Felix
bundlerepository 1.6.4
karaf 1.6.2
Staging repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefelix-053/
You can use this UNIX script to download the release and verify
the
signatures:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/felix/trunk/check_staged_release.sh
Usage:
sh check_staged_release.sh 053 /tmp/felix-staging
Please vote to approve this release:
[ ] +1 Approve the release
[ ] -1 There's a problem (please provide specific comments)
--
Alasdair Nottingham
n...@apache.org
