geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <>
Subject Re: Geronimo Specs 1.1-SNAPSHOT
Date Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:41:21 GMT
On Jan 28, 2006, at 11:51 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> On Jan 28, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> I've updated the trunk of Geronimo Specs to 1.1-SNAPSHOT.  The  
>> thinking is that we update the versions of all the spec jars in  
>> tandem.  The rational for that is that end developers will not  
>> want to pick and choose what got updated in our collection of spec  
>> jars but, instead, will just want the latest and greatest version  
>> for the entire set.
> IMO a more important reason is that we are aggregating all the  
> specs into an uber-spec-jar that contains everything.  In order for  
> this jar to have a meaningful version all the things of which it is  
> built have to have the same version.  In any case, I certainly  
> agree this is the right thing to do.

I see and understand those points, but I would like to add the points  

  1. issuing new versions of jars that don't change creates a  
confusing mess in public repos and classpaths.
  2. snapshots and new jars off all the specs is a terrible way to  
deal with one or two edge cases of jars that change.

But as opinions are cheap, I figured I'd actually revaluate where we  
are at in concrete terms.  I grabbed all the source from 2 years ago,  
10 months ago (near passing the cts), and now then stripped out all  
the comments and diff'ed them.  Here is what I found.

no code changes in 2 years:
  - ejb
  - j2ee-connector
  - j2ee-deployment
  - j2ee-management
  - jms
  - jsp
  - jta
  - servlet

no code changes in 10 months:
  - activation
  - jaxr
  - qname (new)
  - saaj (new)
  - jaxrpc (new)

These two seem to have changed the most:
  - j2ee-jacc (no change since M5)
  - javamail (problem child)

IMHO, doesn't make sense to keep pushing new versions into the public  
for stuff that doesn't change.

What do others think?


View raw message