Btw. as the client does not seem to need a "bridge" or implementations of the W3C interfaces in there, a separate W3C Simple (as opposed to a new/alternate) library also shall go along there. It's code complete and stable for a long time now, but the tweak in the 1.0.0 data would not work with the instanciation of the interfaces. Data 1.0.1 addresses that, so a 1.0.0 or 1.0.1 (doesn't matter much, but it could be best to allign with the corresponding data one) official release of the W3C compliant jars should also be coordinated with that.
It would not hurt for browser map, but it scratches a completely different "itch", so unless we would like to aim for a coordinated "release train" a'la Eclipse (or Java SE or EE), which also pack multiple modules of different version numbers under some umbrella build, to be precise that's <version>1.0.0-SNAPSHOT</version> in our top level POM[?] @Bertrand/all, what is your general preference about an "umbrella" delivery vs. doing them independently, at least at some point when more of them have relevant changes? We are not selling a "commercial product", but as a whole for the project it might send a good sign. Werner On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Reza <[email protected]> wrote: > So im thinking September 1st is a good target date for 1.0.1 data release, > 1.1.0 java and .net client release. It might be a good idea to do the .NET > and Java release together this time so we can do a bigger more complete > release. > > Radu, any plans for browser map during this period? > > > ________________________________ > From: Werner Keil <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" < > [email protected]>; Reza <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 4, 2014 4:25 PM > Subject: Re: next client and data release > > > > I'd point out in the vocabulary, that new properties like "is_robot" (or > "is_crawler", etc.?) are new as of DeviceMap, not squeeze them in the > middle of existing ODDR ones. > Other than that, if the clients work well, I see no problem with a 1.0.1 > data release relatively soon. Could we also include "test_data" or is there > a problem with that? > > Whether the improvements of the "new" client really make 1.1.0 I can't say > (has the "1.0.x" bugfix release been used??) but as e.g. Browsermap is > trailing a bit there is also not anything tragic in 1.1 vs. 1.0.1. To allow > further changes to the data file, 1.0.1 feels better. > > It depends on the classpath fix in data 1.0.1, thus I would prepare a > release of the W3C DDR library as soon as the new data is released. > Especially for data, when could we also start deploying something to > Apache Maven repo? > > As discusssed, the 2 clients don't directly compete, and see some of the > big vendors (DeviceAtlas or DetectRight, etc. not so much WURFL) they often > maintain 2 or more sets of either clients, data sets of both. So a W3C > compatible library can make it easier for their existing codebase to > migrate if they wish (e.g. commercial libraries where the vendor no longer > exists like Volantis) > As soon as the data structure was to change, we'll see, if the W3C aspects > remain, then it won't be an issue, or if the "client.next" may be the only > one for a new "2.x" data files... > > Cheers, > Werner > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Reza <[email protected]> > wrote: > > What is a good date for our next data release (1.0.1) and client release > (1.1.0)? > > > >Other than what has already been discussed and put into JIRA, are there > any other features or improvements wanted in these releases? >
