commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ole Ersoy <ole.er...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] Name of the new TLP
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2016 01:09:38 GMT
It's very easy to create one, but I think we should focus on small high quality simple to use
modules and let third parties provide assemblies.  I think most of us will feel better about
providing solutions that explicitly declare the modules used.  This gives maintainers a more
precise target.  Keeping an uber jar also gets more and more difficult to maintain with each
new module release. For example with superfly-css I change modules all the time and I'm planning
on adding a lot of new ones.  If I also add a uber module I have to maintain that as well.
 That's not my main concern though. I think an uber jar / module can easily cause headaches.
 It's the opposite of allowing JDK 9 or osgi manage dependencies and corresponding contexts.
 The less indirection the better.

Cheers,
Ole


On 01/25/2016 06:38 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> If you decide to break up math into modules, I encourage you to also
> provide an all-in-one jar.
>
> Gary
> On Jan 25, 2016 4:22 PM, "Ole Ersoy" <ole.ersoy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also if each module is very simple and isolated alphas, betas, etc. matter
>> less (If at all).  Most devs releasing to npm rely on semver only.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ole
>>
>> On 01/25/2016 02:27 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2016 10:11 AM, "Emmanuel Bourg" <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 25/01/2016 18:52, Gilles a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> AFAICT, the real issue is one of policy: Commons is supposed to be
>>>> stable,
>>>> stable, stable and stable (IIUC).
>>>>> And CM is far from being mature as a programming project, when
>>>>>
>>>> considering
>>>> design and scope, and not only the quality of its results and
>>>> performance
>>>> (which are both good in many cases).
>>>>> So stability (as in using JDK 5 only) is not a good perspective (surely
>>>>>
>>>> not
>>>> developers and probably not for users either IMO).
>>>>> If this does not change, what's the point indeed?
>>>>>
>>>> I hope that a motivation behind the TLP isn't to break the compatibility
>>>> on every release, otherwise this will quickly turn into a nightmare for
>>>> the users. Bouncycastle plays this game and it isn't really fun to follow
>>>>
>>> :(
>>>
>>> WRT compatibility, the only thing that matters is not creating jar hell
>>> for
>>> users. You can break compatibility if you change package and maven
>>> coordinates. It's up to the project to create enough alphas and betas to
>>> get to a stable public API before a release. That's just basic project
>>> management IMO. Anything less will leave a lot users unhappy.
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>> Emmanuel Bourg
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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