Right. we could use an 0 fill before as 00100 and 00050. Or, let's use my
proposal with only two positions:
macro - incremented when wrapped package changes
minor - incremented when something changes in the wrapper and is about teh
same wrapped package number. And s reset to 0 when macro changes.
Alin Dreghiciu
P.S. is atrted to like to Tim's idea, seams more natural :)
On 3/11/07, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>
> Alin Dreghiciu wrote:
> > 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.
>
> But my concern is that String.compareTo() is not going to be correct, e.g
> .,:
>
> "100" < "50"
>
> -> richard
>
> >
> > 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
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
|