commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [IO] Upcoming IO 2.4
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:52:40 GMT
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>wrote:

> Hi
>
> I am on the Felix and Sling projects where we use commons IO and are
> confronted with a OSGi semantic versioning issue with the Commons IO 2.x
> bundles.
>
> According to [1] Commons IO 2.0 is binary compatible with  Commons IO 1.4.
> So I would assume all 2.x versions are binary compatible with 1.4. Am I
> right ? I hope so ;-)
>
> The problem comes with the package export which is set to be the package
> version of the library, hence 1.4 for the 1.4 release and 2.x for the 2.x
> releases. From the POV of OSGi semantic versioning this stipulates binary
> incompatiblity because of the change in the major version number part.
>
> Would you mind exporting the packages twice ? Once at version 1.5 (higher
> than the last 1.4 library release) and once at the actual library version
> (to not alienate original IO 2.0 clients) ?
>

I hope to hear from others but here some my first impressions.

It feels wrong to mark something with a version (1.5) that does not
exist...

It feels really weird to mark something with two version numbers. Is that
even legal in OSGi?

How does that make sense? If a package is exported as 1.5 and 2.0 it does
not break and breaks BC at the same time. At least that's how I read your
definitions and the executive summary in
http://www.osgi.org/wiki/uploads/Links/SemanticVersioning.pdf.


> Would you consider a bug/patch and include it in the release ?
>

JIRAs and patches are always welcome and often help people see what is
being proposed. The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes :)

If you have not already, please check the release notes for all versions
you care about in
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/io/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES.txtto
make sure the semantics are not OK as they are for OSGi purposes.

Thank you!
Gary


> Thanks and Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] http://commons.apache.org/io/upgradeto2_0.html
>
> Am 05.06.2012 um 19:38 schrieb Gary Gregory:
>
> > A heads-up to the ML:
> >
> > Commit'em if you got'em!
> >
> > I'd like to release 2.4 soon.
> >
> > FYI: My interest is in picking up the UTF-32 fixes, so any additional
> > testing and code review is most welcome.
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> > Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message