felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Offermans <marcel.offerm...@luminis.eu>
Subject RE: Upgrading to Jetty 9
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:00:07 GMT
I agree with the general sentiment that we need to keep moving forward, supporting the latest
version of Jetty.

Personally, I'm not sure if an open source project should keep maintaining releases that run
on Java versions that are no longer supported themselves, but this is a broader discussion
and I guess if there are enough people here that care, then we have a good argument to do
so.

That said, if we keep two branches, I would like to suggest that we create bundles with *different*
symbolic names, instead of trying to maintain both forks within the same bundle version range.
Since the Jetty 9 effort is new, I suggest we choose a new symbolic name for it and keep the
existing one for the "Java 6 compatible fork".

Greetings, Marcel

________________________________________
From: paul.bakker.nl@gmail.com <paul.bakker.nl@gmail.com> on behalf of Paul Bakker <paul.bakker@luminis.eu>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:16 AM
To: dev@felix.apache.org
Subject: Re: Upgrading to Jetty 9

A major version bump is justified when the bundle doesn't work in
environments that previously did work. Note that we're talking about the
bundle version, not about package versions. Even the last release (2.3.0)
should have been a major bump; it now requires extra bundles to be
installed containing APIs, so existing configurations did not longer work.
The version number should warn users if the update is a simple drop-in
replacement or that other changes might be required.

I would be in favour of branching. The Java 6 supported version only gets
maintenance updates, while new development continues on Jetty 9. This way
developers on Java 6 are not forced to upgrade, but new development is not
complicated or limited by the fact that an older version still should be
supported.

Cheers,

Paul


On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Felix Meschberger <fmeschbe@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> The question really is whether the _internal_ upgrade of the Jetty bundle
> to Jetty 9 really is a major change for the Http Service functionality ?
>
> Backwards compatibility is not expected to be hampered. The only
> difference, apart from the new features offered potentially by Jetty 9,
> such as javax.websockets API support, is that the bundle now requires Java
> 7. And I am not really sure, whether an updated requirement really warrants
> going to the next major version.
>
> I know dropping Java 6 support is a problem in some cases, but hey, the
> world keeps on spinning :-)
>
> If possible, I'd rather create two artifacts from the same project, if at
> all possible: One embedding Jetty 8 (supporting Java 6) and one embedding
> Jetty 9 (requiring Java 7).
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> Am 25.07.2014 um 19:29 schrieb Tobias Bocanegra <tripod@apache.org>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > there is an issue that deals with upgrading jetty to 9.x [0]. As it
> > requires java 7, it is not a trivial update. basically the question
> > is:
> >
> > - create 2 bundles: org.apache.felix.http.[jetty8|jetty9]
> > - or update the maven artifact version to 3.0.0 (from 2.4.x)
> >
> > I would tend to the later....
> > regards, toby
> >
> > [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4550
>
>

Mime
View raw message