On 13/04/13 23:56, Emily Jiang wrote: > I still disagree. As I mentioned in the call, most interfaces will be > provider type (implemented by service provider). If we assume them all > to be consumer type (listener pattern), we will bump the major version > unnecessarily when a new method is added. Our guess will be wrong 99% or > even more. I would like to hear what majority people think.
As BJ said, @ConsumerType is the _safe_ guess. (to me) 'safety first' trumps '99%' any day, and I think that's also why Peter made it that way in bnd. And if you feel strong about your 99% then please support it with hard data. Note that in your case, you will _break_ 1% of the time in 'interesting' ways. > > Regards > Emily > > > On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM, BJ Hargrave <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > The @ConsumerType annoation will be in future spec. Adding a method > > in an interface is a major version change if the interface has the > > annoation of @ConsumerType while it will be a minor change if the > > interface has the annoation of @ProviderType. > > > > In reality, most interfaces will fall into the category of > > ProviderType while only minority interfaces need consumer to > implement. > > I think this is a statement of opinion and I don't think there is > any data to confirm this one way or the other. In the absence of > being marked @ConsumerType or @ProviderType, tooling must assume the > safest case which is to assume the type is @ConsumerType. This > results in the most conservative versioning. I think the Aries > versioning tool is wrong here by assuming @ProviderType. > -- > > *BJ Hargrave* > Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM > OSGi Fellow and CTO of the _OSGi Alliance_ <http://www.osgi.org/>_ > [email protected]_ <mailto:[email protected]> > > office: +1 386 848 1781 <tel:%2B1%20386%20848%201781> > mobile: +1 386 848 3788 <tel:%2B1%20386%20848%203788> > > > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev > > > > > -- > Thanks > Emily > ================= > Emily Jiang > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > [email protected] > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev > -- Ferry Huberts _______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
