Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of fmeschbe@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.189 as permitted sender)
From: Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:21:36 +0100
Subject: Re: [All] Versions and versions.
Thread-Topic: [All] Versions and versions.
Thread-Index: Ac1EuNi4Z9c0ntp5Qlq4tYxXYaHy3Q==
Message-ID: <5ABBEA53-DFF6-4B94-B4FD-A74E12E052EB@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CACZkXPzeoRT_L5rLKGFdM3mXuf8GdP+XQdbbLWMpL_DkFMyuoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPFNckjC6fordTj7MajdZG62cHgGbC7=BwHd3jiM0qh7m93E8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALznzY4Z=Cn=xBD4-=-xaAkChBobNd=+-YjqRc3T-T1zHOHeQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FD0B094.1010607@spaceroots.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FD0B094.1010607@spaceroots.org>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi,

Am 07.06.2012 um 15:45 schrieb Luc Maisonobe:

> Hi,
>=20
> Le 06/06/2012 18:27, James Carman a =E9crit :
>> Agreed.  I'm in OSGi-land these days (ServiceMix, Camel, ActiveMQ, etc.)=
,
>> so I'm all for it! :)
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Christian Grobmeier <grobmeier@gmail.co=
m>wrote:
>>=20
>>> No objections here.
>>> If there is a spec we can follow, we should do it.
>>> In commons we build components - osgi is very natural for these kind
>>> of stuff. If it helps the OSGi people and we have only little effort -
>>> why not?
>=20
> Doest this mean we would enforce users to use OSGi too ? This is
> something I would like to avoid, as not everybody uses this (even if
> OSGi is a very good thing and should be used).

This is about enabling the OSGi users (adding sensible package export versi=
ons) and not about forcing non-OSGi users (they don't care for the extra en=
tries in the manifest.

Regards
Felix

>=20
> If adopting these conventions is better for OSGi users and does not harm
> other users, then this would be an improvement.
>=20
> Luc
>=20
>>>=20
>>> Cheers
>>>=20
>>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Opening <CanOfWorms>...
>>>>=20
>>>> Should Commons adopt OSGi Semantic Versioning [1] instead of defining =
our
>>>> own [2] (even though they might in effect be the same)?
>>>>=20
>>>> Should Commons layer its semantic version details on top of OSGi?
>>>>=20
>>>> [1] http://www.osgi.org/wiki/uploads/Links/SemanticVersioning.pdf
>>>> [2] http://commons.apache.org/releases/versioning.html
>>>>=20
>>>> Gary
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> http://www.grobmeier.de
>>> https://www.timeandbill.de
>>>=20
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>=20


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