felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alin Dreghiciu" <adreghi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What about Felix Commons
Date Sun, 11 Mar 2007 20:29:26 GMT
You are right. I was too lazy to check the specs. Chapter 3.5.3 is pretty
clear about this.
So, we ave a deal?
Wrapper version will be composed from the original version and the build
number as: <wrapped_package_version>-<wrapper_version>
where wrapper_version starts by 0 and is incremented every time teh wrapper
pom is changed.

On 3/11/07, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
> Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
> > Maven I'm not sure, I have to check. Osgi? for sure not, but
> > maven-undle-plugin will transform it to
> > <major>.<minor>.<release>.<package-version>.SNAPSHOT (I
guess, if I
> > recall
> > correctly the code which seems a valid version for a bundle (yet not
> very
> > sure about the dot before SNAPSHOT).
> > Tim's proposal seems find to me also but will end up as an OSGi
> > version as
> > in his example 4.1.1.51 where 51 will not be relevant for version
> > resolving
> > in OSGi . So , will be hard to express  the dependency on a certain
> > wrapper
> > version.
>
> 51 is relevant, it is just compared by String.compareTo()...
>
> -> richard
>
> >
> > Alin Dreghiciu
> >
> > On 3/11/07, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
> >> > From my POV I would also like to see somewhere the version of the
> >> wrapped
> >> > package.
> >> > +1 for wrapper having it's own version.
> >> > My proposal:
> >> >
> >> > <major>.<minor>.<release>-<package-version>-SNAPSHOT
> >> >
> >> > <major> - start with 0 and increment when something about felix is
> >> > changed
> >> > that need refactoring in the wrappers
> >> > <minor> - start with 1 and increment as soon as the version of the
> >> > wrapped
> >> > package changes
> >> > <release> - start with 0 and increment on every change on the pom
> >> > <package-version> - original package verison
> >> > SNAPSHOT - everybody knows :)
> >>
> >> I think I prefer Tim's proposal below and it seems to give you want you
> >> want anyway, since the "release number" effectively becomes the version
> >> of the wrapper. However, I am not sure how Maven will deal with
> versions
> >> in this format? Will it be able to tell the latest version? Or even
> OSGi
> >> for that matter, since the qualifier is compared using String.compareTo
> >> ()...
> >>
> >> -> richard
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On 3/10/07, Tim Moloney <t.moloney@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Richard S. Hall wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
> >> >> >> A kind of "urgent" question:
> >> >> >> Shall the exported packages of the wrapped jar contain the
> version
> >> of
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> jar? Something like:
> >> >> >>            <Export-Package>
> >> >> >>              *;version=${pom.version}
> >> >> >>            </Export-Package>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I assume by "version of the jar" you mean the released version
> >> of the
> >> >> > wrapped JAR. If the packages in foo.jar are versioned as a whole
> >> (like
> >> >> > most typical releases), then yes, the exported packages should
be
> >> >> > exported with the associated version.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If the wrapped JAR contains various packages that are versioned
> >> >> > separately, then the various packages should have their
> >> corresponding
> >> >> > version.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Keep in mind that there will also be the Bundle-Version which
is
> >> >> > independent of the package version. The package version should
> >> be the
> >> >> > one assigned by the original developer of the code. The
> >> Bundle-Version
> >> >> > will be assigned by the creator of the bundle wrapper
> pom...perhaps
> >> we
> >> >> > should adopt a common Bundle-Version for this first round.
> >> >> I agree that there should be a separate version number for the
> >> >> pom/Bundle-Version, but I don't think it should be independent of
> the
> >> >> package version.  RPM has the same issue:  wrapping someone else's
> >> >> deliverable and uniquely identifying it.  The approach they have
> >> taken
> >> >> is to add a release number to the wrapped deliverable's version
> >> number.
> >> >> For example, when creating an RPM for gcc 4.1.1, the RPM version
> >> is the
> >> >> gcc version with the RPM release number appended, e.g. 4.1.1-51.
> >> This
> >> >> serves the purpose of making it obvious which version of gcc the RPM
> >> >> contains, as well as uniquely identifying which RPM release of gcc
> >> 4.1.1
> >> >> it is.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think that we can reuse the RPM tactic like this:
> >> >>
> >> >>   :
> >> >>   <properties>
> >> >>     <shortName>FOO</shortName>
> >> >>     <pkgVersion>FOO's version</pkgVersion>
> >> >>     <pomVersion>1</pomVersion>
> >> >>   </properties>
> >> >>   :
> >> >>   <version>${pkgVersion}-${pomVersion}</version>
> >> >>    <description>This bundle simply wraps
> >> >> ${shortName}-${pkgVersion}.jar.</description>
> >> >>   :
> >> >>   <dependencies>
> >> >>         <dependency>
> >> >>             <groupId>FOO's groupId</groupId>
> >> >>             <artifactId>${shortName}</artifactId>
> >> >>             <version>${pkgVersion}</version>
> >> >>         </dependency>
> >> >>     </dependencies>
> >> >>   :
> >> >>   <Export-Package>*;version=${pkgVersion}</Export-Package>
> >> >>   :
> >> >>
> >> >> Note:  maven-bundle-plugin defaults Bundle-Version to be <version>.
> >> >>
> >> >> As we refine the wrapping of a particular package, we increment
> >> >> <pomVersion>.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thoughts?
> >> >>
> >> >> > I just looked at commons-collections and (assuming that I am
> >> reading
> >> >> > the pom correctly) I think it may have been done incorrectly.
It
> >> has
> >> >> > the overall bundle-version as 3.2 (i.e., it has
> >> >> > <version>3.2</version>), but doesn't appear to attach
any
> >> version to
> >> >> > the packages. So, ultimately, this means that you would have an
> >> >> > exported package that looked like this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >    Export-Package: foo; version=0.0.0; bundle-version=3.2.0
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This is not what we want. We want to version our bundles
> >> according to
> >> >> > their degree own version history, so for example our first attempt
> >> >> > might be "0.8.0" or something, but the exported packages are
> >> whatever
> >> >> > the original developer says they are. So for
> >> commons-collections, we
> >> >> > really want to set <version>0.8.0</version> and tell
BND to export
> >> >> > with version=3.2.0. Thus, we would end up with exports like:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >    Export-Package: foo; version=3.2.0; bundle-version=0.8.0
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -> richard
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message