geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Warner" <jaw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Version numbers for plugins of external apps
Date Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:58:29 GMT
I'm leaning to either A or C.  A seems neater and less confusing to a user,
but it requires more effort to learn what you're actually dealing with.  C
makes all that version information readily available and is very handy to
have, but all those version numbers in one identifier can be confusing.
Plus, with C, where do you stop listing version numbers?  What all do you
list in the identifier.  What if you have a plugin that incorporates
multiple artifacts.  The identifier could end up being pretty long if you're
listing all of them.  I don't have any specific examples in mind.  Does
anyone know of a current plugin where this might be the case?

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net> wrote:

> David Jencks wrote:
> > How are we going to name plugins for external apps, such as roller or
> > apache directory?
> >
> > There are three versions involved:
> > 1. geronimo version
> > 2. external app version
> > 3. plugin version
> >
> > I figure if we're developing/releasing it the groupId is going to be
> > o.a.g.plugins
> >
> > That leaves us with the artifactId and version to possibly encode this
> > info into.
> >
> > Lets assume a version number of x.y.z.
> >
> > Here are some possibilities:
> >
> > A.  Don't encode anything, just have the plugin version be (3).  So,
> > roller-jetty-1.0 would happen to be for roller 4.0 and geronimo 2.1, and
> > you'd have to look inside to find that out.  I'd suggest in this case
> > that changes in roller or geronimo versions would bump the major version
> > x or minor version y whereas releasing an enhanced plugin for the same
> > app and geronimo versions would bump z.
> >
> > B. Include the external app version in the artifactId and don't encode
> > the geronimo version.  E.g., roller-4.0-jetty-1.0 would happen to be for
> > geronimo 2.1 but you could see that it's for roller 4.0 from the
> > artifactId.  This is basically the solution we used for specs.  I assume
> > changing geronimo version would bump the major version x or minor
> > version y whereas releasing an enhanced plugin for the same app and
> > geronimo versions would bump z.
> >
> > C. Include both the external app version and geronimo version in the
> > artifactId, e.g. roller-4.0-g-2.1-jetty-1.0  would be the first release
> > of a roller plugin using roller 4.0 and geronimo 2.1.
> >
> > D. Include the geronimo version but not the external app version, e.g.
> > roller-g-2.1-jetty-1.0.
> >
> > I'm inclined to go for (A) but see arguments for everything except D.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I like (C) because you can easily determine everything from the plugin
> name and I think that is the most helpful for a user.  Yes, it's long
> and ugly ... and you could figure out the other versions in other ways
> ... but it's very helpful. We could eliminate one more character by
> compressing g-2.1 to g2.1.
>
> Joe
>
>
>


-- 
~Jason Warner

Mime
View raw message