commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:36:30 GMT
Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-)

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Paul Benedict <pbenedict@apache.org> wrote:
> Another option to consider is splitting the version numbers such as:
>
> JDBC3 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.3.0
> JDBC4 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.4.0
>
> Unless you have expectations to continue supporting JDBC3 in the next
> major release, I would seriously suggest a version bump. The typical
> use case of major version bumps are incompatibilities.
>
> PS: You could also try splitting 1.3.0 / 1.3.5, but you would have to
> bring in a 4 digit for patch releases -- to avoid 5 1.3.0 patches
> incrementing to 1.3.5.
>
> Paul
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20:
>>>
>>>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement" or not.
>>>>> Basically we say that dbcp 1.3 with JDBC4 will not be backward
>>>>> compatible. Then why don't we use the new artifactId for this and allow
>>>>> 1.3 with JDBC3 to be a real drop-in replacement? If somebody works with
>>>>> ranges, he might get the newer dbcp anyway and wondering about the
>>>>> incompatibility later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore we might better do:
>>>>>
>>>>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3
>>>>> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3
>>>> Thanks Jorg and Grzegorz.  Really appreciate the feedback. It is
>>>> important that we get this right, minimizing confusion / bad impact
>>>> to maven users and making upgrades both safe and as easy as
>>>> possible. I was thinking the same way as you, Jörg, on the groupId
>>>> change for the jdbc4 version.
>>>
>>> Note, that I also changed the artifactId "dbcp vs. dbcp4" ;-)
>>>
>>> However, thinking about it, I am not sure if this is necessary and we can
>>> really keep the artifactId (your first plan). If somebody uses both
>>> artifacts (by transitive deps), his project is broken anyway. We simply have
>>> to point out in the website and README, that there are really two different
>>> commons-dbcp-1.3.jar files. Or is it too much confusion?
>>
>> That worries ma a little bit, more for Ant than Maven users.
>> Incompatible jars with the same name in the wild is asking for
>> trouble (well, like the old days ;).
>>
>> Another option, given that we don't have to mess with relocation
>> poms, is just to use org.apache.commons:dbcp:1.3 for the jdbc4 version.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I see this as killing two birds with
>>>> one stone - getting us to the maven standard groupId moving forward
>>>> and eliminating or at least making less likely the chance of users
>>>> blowing up due to unintentional incompatible upgrades.
>>>
>>> Yes. And we can avoid the tedious relocation POMs, because it is no
>>> relocation.
>>>
>>>> Regarding Tomcat, Mark or someone else can chime in to confirm, but
>>>> my understanding is that tomcat builds and repackages dbcp from
>>>> source using Ant and as long as we keep trunk sources as they are,
>>>> tomcat will be able to build all versions.
>>>
>>> - Jörg
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message