commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Spero (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COMPRESS-399) OSGI package versions are overly pessimistic, except when they're overly optimisic
Date Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:56:04 GMT


Simon Spero commented on COMPRESS-399:

I ended up doing the third option, which probably needs a squashing. 

There's a tool to tell you when to bump... it's a different goal  (baseline) of the plugin
you'e already using. 

It's already set up in all three branches, and will fail the build at the verify stage if
the version numbers are mismatched. 

[For semantic versioning, major versions  are needed for any  breaking api changes.  Breaking
apis is usually not a good thing, but it's better to make it obvious than to hide it.
 The good thing about osgi modularity is that internal changes to private packages don't count.
 Also, when resolving a module, as long as there's some set of versions of every required
dependency packages that are consistent with all package version constraints,  a bundle can
be resolved.  So if my module needs to use packages from modules A and B, with the former
requiring a package from Compress between 1.4 and 2, and the latter requiring one between
1.5 and 2, the system will use package version 1.5.  This is fine, as long as only non-breaking
changes happened.  

 The trouble with OSGI is that until you understand why it does things the way it does, it
just seems ridiculously complicated, and until you learn about the bits that are there to
take care of the complexity for you (e.g. Declarative Services), handling the dynamic of the
environment is painful. 
I hated it until I started trying to work with Jigsaw early last year. The issues with jigsaw
help explain a  lot of the design decisions in OSGI  ]

> OSGI package versions are overly pessimistic, except when they're overly optimisic 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: COMPRESS-399
>                 URL:
>             Project: Commons Compress
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Build
>    Affects Versions: 1.14
>            Reporter: Simon Spero
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 1.15
>   Original Estimate: 0h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
> The OSGI versions in the current distributions are not being correctly generated.  OSGI
relies on package version numbers following semantic version properly for correct resolution.
> Current version numbers have been generated from the maven version. This has lead to
new minor version increases for packages that have no API changed; it has also concealed 
 major (breaking) changes to several packages since 1.0.
> I have created two branches that address the issue.
> Both add the bundle:baseline goal to the verify phase of the build. 
> The also both have packageinfo files added to every package, containing the package version.
These are picked up by the bundle manifest generator, and are used if no explicit version
is given in the "Export-Package" command. 
> Both branches bump the major version number for packages with any minor changes to 2.0.0.
 This makes the bundle correct, but does not fix improper import declarations made by users
of earlier bundles.   
> One branch uses the version number  from the oldest version that has no changes when
compared to HEAD, and which has not had any breaking changes since 1.0.0.  This will fail
the build because version numbers should be increasing, and may cause issues if an importing
bundle uses a range that requires an identical, but higher numbered version of the package
> The other branch uses version 1.14.0 for all packages with no major changes. 
> A third alternative, which I didn't add, is to just set all packages be version 1.14.0,
and just bump major versions when required going forward. The bulk of the major changes happened
a good few versions back,  so it's not as bad as it could be. 
> If you have a preferred option, I can create a pull request on Github 

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message