db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajesh Kartha <kar...@Source-Zone.Org>
Subject Re: [PATCH] creating Derby plug-in for Eclipse
Date Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:06:29 GMT
The version that I suggested initially was created on the basis of what 
I first read at the Eclipse plug-in versioning link at:

http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/platform-core-home/documents/plugin-versioning.html



But on further reading, I understand the above link governs only the 
plug-in versioning that are part of the
*Eclipse SDK *and not other plug-ins.   I have not yet found any 
'guidelines' that Eclipse has set forth for versioning of 
third party plug-ins in general.  Except for the versioning scheme of 
<MAJOR>.<MINOR>.<MAINT>, I have not seen
any other kind followed by plug-in developers.

Examples: Quantum - 2.4.4 (http://quantum.sourceforge.net/),  DbEdit 
1.0.2 (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dbedit),
                                 Sqldeveloper Plug-in 2.0.0 
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/sqldeveloper/)

Also as per the link above:

For a version of the type:

1.2.1.31_v20040629
1.2.1.30_v20040707

the .31 and .30 indicates the Eclipse version supported.   The Derby 
plug-in does not have any such dependency on Eclipse 3.0 or 3.1

Given the above, if we have to really follow a proper versioning scheme 
and since Eclipse does not set any guidelines for third
party plug-ins,  we are better off using the official Derby versioning. 
Hence  suggested  using the following in my earlier mail:

1) The plugin zip be called - derby_core_plugin_10.1.0.zip        
2) The package name be -org.apache.derby.core_10.1.0  

And if we have to provide the Derby build version, somewhere in the 
plug-in, the ideal place is plugin.xml

3) The plugin.xml will show the actual Derby release upto the build 
number: 10.1.0.0 (122563M)

(For # (3) above, the only other choice here is to stick with 10.1.0, 
without any build info. I am not in favor of this, since
giving the build details will help the user and the development 
community to resolve issues.)

Any other suggestions/views on the above, please do respond.

Regards,
Rajesh

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Rajesh Kartha wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I was wondering if anybody got a chance to review the patches I sent
>>most recently, for creating the Derby Plug-in for Eclipse, and commit
>>the changes. Please do
>>let me know, if there are any other changes needed.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Rajesh
>>
>>    
>>
>-
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>
>>Rajesh Kartha wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I have
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>
>>>- changed the version entry in plugin.xml to be consistent with the
>>>Derby builds: example - 10.1.0.0 (111546M)
>>>      
>>>
>
>My only comment is this version in plugin.xml. What is the most natural
>version here, matching Eclipse terminology (the original _v111546 you
>had) or matching Derby's version string output from sysinfo etc?
>
>I asked before why you had picked the _v111546 format, I didn't request
>a change to the Derby format, I was just trying to understand where that
>format came from.
>
>Dan.
>
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFBw6HcIv0S4qsbfuQRAtXoAKCTxbOwL5eyEjOjLXM5XSnQsg8OjgCgoX2m
>FY64hebZ0ErH/4Kp4zppUoQ=
>=Hgd8
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>  
>


Mime
View raw message