Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <02c601c60f5e$4ac3b480$c201a8c0@Deepal>
From: "Deepal Jayasinghe" <deepal@opensource.lk>
To: <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
References: <029801c60d33$3893a090$c201a8c0@Deepal>
 <19e0530f0512300536k7a4f3a24h85490090e7446a19@mail.gmail.com>
 <43B61031.2010103@sosnoski.com>
 <1136007835.8593.119.camel@localhost.localdomain>
 <19e0530f0512302150o654cec6bqd1c67720082cd3cb@mail.gmail.com>
 <1136009523.8593.122.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Subject: Re: [axis2] Module versions support
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 11:35:06 +0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think we are done with the format of the version number ,
 but I have some other problem to solve now say we have multiple version of 
the same module in the system , and right now at the deployment time I call 
the init method of each module (since we don't have the notion of module 
version yet) , there if the module want to do some stuff they can do  that , 
as an example in RM case if it has saved some data they can get them back at 
the initialization stage.

But the problem is what are we going to do if there are multiple versions of 
the same module , should we need to call init method of all the modules ? 
where they are going to be engaged or not.

Thanks,
 Deepal
................................................................
~Future is Open~

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@opensource.lk>
To: <dims@apache.org>
Cc: <axis-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [axis2] Module versions support


> On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 00:50 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>> just  reviewed the original email again...it talks about
>> xyz-00.0000.mar hence the confusion.
>>
>> So, we should go with say security-1.23.mar. Right? just to be absolutely 
>> clear.
>
> Right .. or security-1.235486.mar etc... basically we expect the format
> to be modulename-{majorversion}.{minorversion}.mar where the two version
> #s are integers. (Major should not have any leading zeros but that's
> just a redundant comment - anyone who puts that deserves whatever
> behavior they get.)
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>