Hi,
The current versioning implementation is IMHO too 'tight'. For instance,
2.0.0alpha1 is parsed as '0.0.0.0' with a qualifier of '2.0.0alpha1', whereas
this should
be parsed in the same way as 2.0.0.alpha.1 or 2.0.0-alpha-1.
Here's a proposal:
- don't use the current 4-digit limitation, but instead list with a random
amount of entries
- entries are separated by dots or dashes
- entries are separated by transition to/from alpha to numeric
- sub-lists are indicated by '-'
- entries can be either: string, integer, or sublist
- versions are compared entry by entry, where we have 3 options;
* integer <=> integer: normal numerical compare
* integer <=> string: integers are newer
* integer <=> list: integers are newer
* string <=> string: if it's a qualifier, qualifier compare, else lexical
compare,
taking into account if either is a qualifier.
* string <=> list: list is newer
* list <=> list: recursion, same as a 'top-level' version compare. Where one
list is shorter,
'0' is assumed (so 2.0 <=> 2 == 0, 2.0-alpha <=> 2.0 => 2.0-alpha <=>
2.0.0 = -1 (2.0 = newer))
Now for some examples to explain the rules above:
(note; i'm using the following notation:
[1, 0] is a list with items 1, 0;
[1, 0, [2, 3]] is a list with items 1, 0, [2, 3] where the latter is a
sublist)
Version parsing:
'1.0': [1, 0]
'1.0.0.0.0' [1, 0, 0, 0, 0]
'1.0-2.3': [1, 0, [2, 3]]
'1.0-2-3': [1, 0, [2, [3]]]
'1.0-alpha-1': [1, 0, ["alpha", [1]]]
'1.0alpha1': [1, 0, ["alpha", [1]]] or [1, 0, "alpha", 1], which is the
current implementation (see bottom)
String sorting (qualifiers)
SNAPSHOT < alpha < beta < gamma < rc < ga < unknown(lexical sort) < '' < sp
(ga = latest rc, final version
'' = no qualifier, final version
sp = service pack, improvement/addition on final release)
usually systems either use '' or ga, not both.
so 1.0-rc3 < 1.0-ga == 1.0 < 1.0-sp1 < 1.0.1
Comparing;
1)
1.0-SNAPSHOT <=> 1.0
[1, 0, [SNAPSHOT]] <=> [1, 0]
the first 2 items are equal, the last is assumed to be 0 for the right hand,
and thus is newer.
2)
1.0-beta-3 <=> 1.0-alpha-4
[1, 0, ["beta", [3]]] <=> [1, 0, ["alpha", [4]]]
same here, then "beta" is newer then "alpha" so the first half wins
3)
1.0-2.3 <=> 1.0-2-3
[1, 0, [2, 3]] <=> [1, 0, [2, [3]]]
first 2 items are the same, then this is left;
[2, 3] <=> [2, [3]]
first item is the same, second item: the left list wins since the right one is
a sublist.
So 1.0-2.3 is newer than 1.0-2-3 (which seems right: -[digit] usually
indicates a maintainer update,
and '.' here a bugfix version, though i doubt this will be a valid usecase).
4)
1.0-alpha-2 <=> 1.0alpha2
The current implementation parses this as:
[1, 0, [alpha, [2]]] <=> [1, 0, alpha, 2]
The right one is newer.
If we change parsing '1.0alpha2' by using sublists on alpha<->digit
transition, both will parse
as [1, 0, ["alpha", [2]]. I think this is preferrable.
we may need to flatten the list or assume alpha<->digit transitions create a
new sublist.
So, I've given both a way to represent versions in a generic way, and an
algorithm to compare versions.
Replacing DefaultArtifactVersion is easy enough (see bottom), though ranges may
be a bit more complicated.
This scheme will support the eclipse version numbering:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering
(basically: major.minor.bugfix.qualifier: [major, minor, bugfix, qualifier]
and Jboss: http://docs.jboss.org/process-guide/en/html/release-procedure.html,
(basically: X.YY.ZZ.Q*, for instance 1.2.3.alpha4: [1, 2, 3, "alpha", 4]
Maven: major.minor(.bugfix)?(-(alpha|beta|rc)-X)? which will be:
[ major, minor, bugfix?, [ alpha|beta|rc, [X] ]
I'll probably miss some usecases or got some things wrong, but if we do not support
some sort of <versionScheme>
tag in the POM, we want to be able to accommodate versioning in a most generic
way, and I think this comes close.
I've created an implementation[1] and a unit test[2].
I've had to comment out one assert: 2.0.1-xyz < 2.0.1. I think generally this
is not the case. For example,
the wiki guide to patching plugins states that you could patch a plugin and
change it's version to 2.0-INTERNAL.
In this case, 2.0 would be newer than 2.0-INTERNAL, which renders the wiki
description invalid. In my sample
implementation, 2.0.1-xyz is newer than 2.0.1.
Though should this be required, the code is easily modified to reflect this.
So, WDYT?
Any additional version schemes that cannot be handled by this?
If this looks ok, then my next challenge will be to support ranges. ;)
[1] http://www.neonics.com/~forge/GenericArtifactVersion.java - put in
maven-artifact/src/main/java/.../versioning/
Note: this one doesn't implement ArtifactVersion since we never know what the
major/minor versions etc.
will be. It could implement it and default to 0 if the item isn't an integer;
[2] http://www.neonics.com/~forge/GenericArtifactVersionTest.java - put in
maven-artifact/src/test/java/.../versioning/
Note: this test is a copy of the DefaultArtifactVersionTest, with Default
replaced by Generic.
The testVersionParsing is left out since the other unit test already takes
care of checking if this works
okay, and because GenericArtifactVersion doesn't implement ArtifactVersion.
I've tested for all constructor calls that the toString() method yields the
constructor argument.
-- Kenney
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
