axis-c-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Samisa Abeysinghe <>
Subject Re: [Axis2] Time for 1.0 Release
Date Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:19:31 GMT
Chris Darroch wrote:
> Samisa Abeysinghe wrote:
>> So I would like to propose that we release 1.0 with current set of
>> features and look to stabilize the current code base before we release
>> 1.0 as much as possible.
>> I think we should be able to do this release in one months time.
>    I fear I'm rather swamped in work for the next few months, but
> I hope to review the codebase before the 1.0 release.
>    I do have a related issue, though, that I think is worth
> discussing before such a release, and that's what the versioning
> scheme and rules should be for the project.  I'd think these
> need to be nailed down more or less in stone prior to a 1.x
> or 1.x.x major release.
>    Users should understand what kinds of guarantees are being made
> with regard to future compatibility, since we expect them to develop
> third-party service modules.  They should certainly not have to
> rewrite or recompile these modules if they upgrade their Axis2/C
> installation to pick up a security bug fix, for example.
>    So, with what versions is it acceptable for Axis2/C to break
> compatibility with previous versions?  How should the versioning
> scheme indicate such transitions?  What about patch releases to
> fix security bugs; can these change the API or ABI at all?  And
> so forth.
>    As a C project, I would suggest that it might make sense for Axis2/C
> to follow the lead of other major Apache C projects, such as APR and
> httpd.  These two have fairly detailed versioning guidelines and
> requirements, especially in relation to the promise of stable APIs
> and ABIs, compile-time options, etc.:
+1. It would take some effort to make the binary compatibility to get 
going. I have dropped the ops in many of the structs but a few remains.
I hope we can adopt the above guidelines as they are to our project.
I wild look into the above and see what else we need to do in order to 
adhere to the version guidelines.
>    Axis2/C also installs a lot of libraries, and as such, I'd suggest
> that it follow the same guidelines that APR does, with respect to
> parallel installation and library naming:
> Such a scheme allows, for example, a from a future
> Axis2/C installation to be installed alongside a
> from a previous installation.
+1. We would need to re-visit our build system for this. But yes it is 
worth the effort.

>    One interesting issue is that Axis2/C is contains both applications,
> like httpd, and libraries, like APR.  It also contains a number of
> related sub-projects.  It allows for third-party service modules to be
> written against its API, like httpd.  And it may compile its own
> "third-party" modules (e.g., mod_axis2) for use with httpd.
>    These complexities probably mean that we need to develop a fairly
> comprehensive set of versioning rules, and possibly make some
> changes to the installation process (e.g., to follow the parallel
> installation guidelines above) prior to announcing a 1.0 or 1.0.0
> stable release.
> Chris.

Samisa Abeysinghe : (WSO2 Oxygen Tank - Web Services Developers' Portal)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message