Re: [OGNL] startup questions
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:14 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 May 2011 14:51, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: However, if a breaking API change is needed, then the package name/Maven ids will *have* to be changed. That's not different from a new major release in commons. If you anticipate the necessity of binary changes, consider creating a maintenance branch and a new branch anyways. +1, but my concern is not about SVN branches. Depending on incubator code is akin to depending on alpha code, i.e. the user should be prepared for API instability. Why so? Since incubation generally means new eyes looking at the code, it seems likely that any API problems are quite likely to be found in incubation. Probably more so than afterwards. It's mostly about incubating the community, not the code. I think your 'seems likely' is fair, but it wouldn't apply to existing products and wouldn't lead to your more bombastic original statement. In contrary, I'd suggest to have the early release based on a stable branch for that very reason. But if problems are found with the API, there is no such thing as a stable branch. It's a mature codebase. Ignore the incubator aspect and work on the next version as if it was already in commons and/or had never changed its location. +1 to moving to the next major version; technically no reason but it does have good community reasons such that the change of source is clear and well communicated. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
[OGNL] startup questions
Hi all guys, as you maybe already noticed, we started working on OGNL codebase, I some question that PMCs/Mentors can help to reply: * is it fine updating groupId to `org.apache.commons` and artifactId `commons-ognl` even if under incubation? * version number: there are 2 way of thinking about it. For someone is fine continuing from the old version number, IMHO it should be 0.1-incubating, since in my mind ognl != commons-ognl. Which one sounds better? I tried to see how running projects managed that situation, once under Apache incubator, but didn't have success. Thoughts? * it sounds reasonable to me plug the commons-parent pom to OGNL pom, WDYT? Many thanks in advance, all the best! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
Hi Simone, Simone Tripodi wrote: Hi all guys, as you maybe already noticed, we started working on OGNL codebase, I some question that PMCs/Mentors can help to reply: * is it fine updating groupId to `org.apache.commons` and artifactId `commons-ognl` even if under incubation? +1 * version number: there are 2 way of thinking about it. For someone is fine continuing from the old version number, IMHO it should be 0.1-incubating, since in my mind ognl != commons-ognl. Which one sounds better? I tried to see how running projects managed that situation, once under Apache incubator, but didn't have success. Thoughts? I'd continue with the next major release number. Actually users don't really care about, where the project is hosted, for them it's still ongl. You would have been surprised also if Subversion started over with 1.0 again, didn't you? * it sounds reasonable to me plug the commons-parent pom to OGNL pom, WDYT? Definitely. Many thanks in advance, all the best! Cheers, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
2011/5/11 Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com * version number: there are 2 way of thinking about it. For someone is fine continuing from the old version number, IMHO it should be 0.1-incubating, since in my mind ognl != commons-ognl. Which one sounds better? I tried to see how running projects managed that situation, once under Apache incubator, but didn't have success. Thoughts? I'd continue with the next major release number. That is 4.0.0. Antonio
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
On 11 May 2011 13:00, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com wrote: Hi Simone, Simone Tripodi wrote: Hi all guys, as you maybe already noticed, we started working on OGNL codebase, I some question that PMCs/Mentors can help to reply: * is it fine updating groupId to `org.apache.commons` and artifactId `commons-ognl` even if under incubation? +1 I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during (most of) incubation. While the code is still incubating, I think it would be OK to break compatibility without forcing a package name change or Maven id change. Once OGNL is accepted into Commons, we need to be much more careful about backwards compatibility. Changing to the final names now might force another change if the API needs to be changed later. * version number: there are 2 way of thinking about it. For someone is fine continuing from the old version number, IMHO it should be 0.1-incubating, since in my mind ognl != commons-ognl. Which one sounds better? I tried to see how running projects managed that situation, once under Apache incubator, but didn't have success. Thoughts? I'd continue with the next major release number. Actually users don't really care about, where the project is hosted, for them it's still ongl. You would have been surprised also if Subversion started over with 1.0 again, didn't you? * it sounds reasonable to me plug the commons-parent pom to OGNL pom, WDYT? Definitely. Many thanks in advance, all the best! Cheers, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during (most of) incubation. Disagreed. Changing package names etc. should be the first steps in incubation. As should be the publication of an early release with the new package names. This allows end users to pick up as soon as possible while still be upwards compatible. If you don't do that, then users might prefer to wait until the major change is done. -- I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
On May 11, 2011, at 9:36, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during (most of) incubation. Disagreed. Changing package names etc. should be the first steps in incubation. As should be the publication of an early release with the new package names. This allows end users to pick up as soon as possible while still be upwards compatible. +1 Gary If you don't do that, then users might prefer to wait until the major change is done. -- I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
Would you guys be willing to start at 4.0-SNAPSHOT so there's a direct continuation of versioning? Just a novel thought since it might help others to see it's not a re-invention of OGNL, per se, but the continuation of it. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote: On May 11, 2011, at 9:36, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during (most of) incubation. Disagreed. Changing package names etc. should be the first steps in incubation. As should be the publication of an early release with the new package names. This allows end users to pick up as soon as possible while still be upwards compatible. +1 Gary If you don't do that, then users might prefer to wait until the major change is done. -- I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
On 11 May 2011 14:36, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during (most of) incubation. Disagreed. Changing package names etc. should be the first steps in incubation. As should be the publication of an early release with the new package names. This allows end users to pick up as soon as possible while still be upwards compatible. However, if a breaking API change is needed, then the package name/Maven ids will *have* to be changed. If you don't do that, then users might prefer to wait until the major change is done. Depending on incubator code is akin to depending on alpha code, i.e. the user should be prepared for API instability. If the user is not prepared to deal with that, then they should not be using incubator code in my view. But if the OGNL developers don't mind potentially ending up with something other than o.a.c.ognl that is up to them. I'm just trying to point out that there may be disadvantages to changing now. -- I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:45 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: However, if a breaking API change is needed, then the package name/Maven ids will *have* to be changed. That's not different from a new major release in commons. If you anticipate the necessity of binary changes, consider creating a maintenance branch and a new branch anyways. Depending on incubator code is akin to depending on alpha code, i.e. the user should be prepared for API instability. Why so? In contrary, I'd suggest to have the early release based on a stable branch for that very reason. -- I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
Hi Paul! yes I agree, according to Joerg's suggestion, version should be 4.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT. @Joerg: absolutely right, thanks for your help!!! Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote: Would you guys be willing to start at 4.0-SNAPSHOT so there's a direct continuation of versioning? Just a novel thought since it might help others to see it's not a re-invention of OGNL, per se, but the continuation of it. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com wrote: On May 11, 2011, at 9:36, Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: I'd be inclined to keep the current package name and Maven ids during (most of) incubation. Disagreed. Changing package names etc. should be the first steps in incubation. As should be the publication of an early release with the new package names. This allows end users to pick up as soon as possible while still be upwards compatible. +1 Gary If you don't do that, then users might prefer to wait until the major change is done. -- I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
Re: [OGNL] startup questions
I agree and moreover I hate whenever I try to add a maven dependency through Intellij Idea and I see 3 different major version, realizing that the small version is the latter. On 11 May 2011 15:41, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote: Would you guys be willing to start at 4.0-SNAPSHOT so there's a direct continuation of versioning? Just a novel thought since it might help others to see it's not a re-invention of OGNL, per se, but the continuation of it. -- Maurizio Cucchiara - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
