Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:34:09 +0200
From: Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
To: <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: OSGi Version at Package Level
In-Reply-To: <CAOGo0VY0y5cY9tmSWvx8Uqtua0sTCj0d9MXhhOW-6QrqjfYdmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <oh7g9d$4o5$1@blaine.gmane.org>
 <0bb00715-d034-397b-e94d-7ab995bfc014@apache.org>
 <CAEWfVJmTrGfpNci81G2m3HsGuuX6WjzXbuDqugHNL5UcdWEshA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1f46df1f-d3f7-5dfe-e96d-90c6be9492cc@apache.org>
 <CAEWfVJmDmtbs=NZ0xxKamtiyFjNKrg2iuQSytuKr6UWE97NHkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOGo0VY0y5cY9tmSWvx8Uqtua0sTCj0d9MXhhOW-6QrqjfYdmA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4fcf8982c6fba07e366b54d832fe8cd5@scarlet.be>
User-Agent: Scarlet Webmail
X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: sif; whitelist
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1-exp at sif
X-Virus-Status: Clean
archived-at: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:34:24 -0000

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:54:54 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 7 June 2017 at 09:02, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org> 
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> 
>> wrote:
>>> Le 7/06/2017 à 09:23, Bertrand Delacretaz a écrit :
>>>>... Implementing semantic versioning at the java package level as 
>>>> opposed
>>>> to bundle level.
>>>
>>> That's the theory, I'm actually curious to see what real issue it 
>>> solves
>>> with commons-compress....
>>
>> I agree that what I explained is "the theory" which is very valid in
>> complex systems fully based on OSGi, avoiding problems if for 
>> example
>> an API package is provided by multiple bundles.
>>
>> But maybe it doesn't make sense for commons-compress, I don't know
>> that code well enough to comment.
>
> I doubt package-level versions make sense for (m)any Commons 
> components.
> AFAIK most components are only usable and released as a whole.

It would have made sense in a certain component that is so big that
many parts of it did not fundamentally change between two releases,
yet where bumped into a different top-level package because other
parts required an incompatible release.

For a single "real" component (small scope), it is not necessary,
almost by definition.

For a bunch of utilities, e.g. (maven) modules, that can evolve
independently or at different paces, it seems like a neat idea.
[As was explained by Stian some time ago (when I had proposed to
allow module versions, it is a political decision, not a technical
one.]


Regards,
Gilles


> It might make sense for VFS I suppose, if that wants to release
> implementations separately.
>
>> -Bertrand
>>


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