hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] HttpComponents Core 4.2 release based on RC1
Date Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:33:34 GMT
On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 19:03 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 24 April 2012 18:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 18:07 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> On 24 April 2012 17:18, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 16:59 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> On 24 April 2012 16:03, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>
wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 15:18 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> >> On 24 April 2012 12:13, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>
wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 02:48 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 23 April 2012 14:33, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On 21 April 2012 12:21, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>
wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> Please vote on releasing these packages
as HttpComponents Core 4.2. The
> >> >> >> >> >> vote is open for the at least 72 hours,
and only votes from
> >> >> >> >> >> HttpComponents PMC members are binding.
The vote passes if at least
> >> >> >> >> >> three binding +1 votes are cast and there
are more +1 than -1 votes.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Packages:
> >> >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~olegk/httpcore-4.2-RC1/
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Release notes:
> >> >> >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~olegk/httpcore-4.2-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Maven artefacts:
> >> >> >> >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-078/org/apache/httpcomponents/
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> SVN tag:
> >> >> >> >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpcore/tags/4.2-RC1/
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> >> >>  Vote:  HttpComponents Core 4.2 release
> >> >> >> >> >>  [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents
Core 4.2.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Sorry, I'm changing my vote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>  [X] -1 I am against releasing the packages
(must include a reason).
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I've just noticed that Clirr reports several compatibility
issues against 4.1.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I've not investigated in any detail, but it looks
as though at least
> >> >> >> >> some of these are binary compatibility issues, and
they appear to be
> >> >> >> >> in public APIs.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It may be that these are not actually a problem,
but I think they need
> >> >> >> >> to be investigated further.
> >> >> >> >> If the errors are harmless - or perhaps only affect
source builds - it
> >> >> >> >> would be helpful to update the site (and ideally
release notes)
> >> >> >> >> accordingly.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> [No need to cancel the vote just yet, in case I'm
wrong.]
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> BTW, we recently added test jars to the Commons Maven
output.
> >> >> >> >> This should make it easier to run old tests against
new releases.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Sebastian
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The reported differences in public APIs reported by Clirr
are due to two
> >> >> >> > things (1) upgrade from Java 1.3 to Java 1.5 (2) removal
of code
> >> >> >> > deprecated between 4.0-beta1 and 4.0 (that is, before
4.0 GA, more than
> >> >> >> > two years ago)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > We had a discussion about pros and cons of upgrading
to Java 1.5 and if
> >> >> >> > I remember it correctly you were in favor of that idea
[1]. The changes
> >> >> >> > have also been announced early enough (several releases
in advance) [2].
> >> >> >> > They do make 4.1 and 4.2 not fully binary compatible
but I seriously
> >> >> >> > doubt there will be a single user affected by incompatibility.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I hope you will change your mind.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I've been looking further at the changes.
> >> >> >> The changes to NIO are all removals of deprecated methods,
so not a
> >> >> >> problem (or at least, not our problem).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The removed methods in HttpCore are also deprecated methods,
so not a problem.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not only were they deprecated, they are deprecated two release
cycles
> >> >> > back (before 4.0 official release).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Not sure why the value definitions of HTTP.DEFAULT_CONTENT_CHARSET
and
> >> >> >> DEFAULT_PROTOCOL_CHARSET were changed.
> >> >> >> Given that they are now deprecated, I would have thought the
values
> >> >> >> could have been left untouched.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think the case changed (by mistake). I'll fix it right away.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> However AFAICT that does not affect compatibility.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [BTW, in future we ought to document in which release items
are deprecated]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That just leaves the changed method signatures, which are
due to
> >> >> >> adding generics to Iterator in o.a.h.message.Basic*Iterator
and to
> >> >> >> AbstractMessageParser.
> >> >> >> In the case of the MessageParser subclasses, these were also
changed
> >> >> >> to use more specific subclasses:
> >> >> >> HttpRequest and HttpResponse instead of their common super-interface
HttpMessage
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's not obvious to me if these methods are likely to be called
by 3rd
> >> >> >> party code or whether they are only likely to be used internally.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You see, in any sane use case scenarios, especially as far as
iterators
> >> >> > are concerned, the type returned from those methods would always
be cast
> >> >> > to the expected subtype. In almost all cases regardless of how
those
> >> >> > methods are being used the changes will have no effect at the
runtime
> >> >> > behavior.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem is that the return type of a method is part of the signature.
> >> >> Java won't find the method at runtime if the signature changes between
> >> >> compilation and run-time.
> >> >>
> >> >> This generally does not affect source compatibility, but it does
> >> >> affect binary compat.
> >> >>
> >> >> We had this exact problem in Commons IO
> >> >> We wanted to change a method return from void to something else;
> >> >> however testing against pre-existing binaries showed that this broke
> >> >> binary compat.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > All right. I'll revert those changes.
> >>
> >> We are already making the assumption breaking the API is OK for
> >> long-deprecated methods, i.e. that user applications have migrated
> >> away from the deprecated methods.
> >>
> >> So if the methods in question are not likely to be used by 3rd party
> >> applications - are they effectively internal ? - we could consider
> >> releasing with such breaks in compat, provided that such changes are
> >> clearly documented.
> >>
> >
> > It is almost as easy just to deprecate the affected classes.
> 
> Which classes need to be deprecated?
> 
> > What is done is done.
> 
> Not sure I follow what you mean here.
> 

I already reverted the changes that made 4.2 binary incompatible with
4.1 with exception of removal of deprecated code.

> >> > I always thought the return type did not matter for binary method calls.
Obviously I was wrong.
> >>
> >> I originally thought the same. It was one of the long-time Commons
> >> devs who pointed out the problem.
> >>
> >> It's particularly strange that changing void to non-void matters, but it does.
> >> [Perhaps it was easier than making an exception for that particular case]
> >>
> >
> > I am not sure I understand the point of including the return type in the
> > method signature since there will always be ambiguity in case there is
> > no assignment of the method return to a variable.
> 
> Not possible, see below.
> 
> > int i = obj.dostuff(); // returns int
> > double d = obj.dostuff(); // returns double
> 
> That's not possible; obj.dostuff() can only have a single return type (or void).
> 
> Compiler complains about a "duplicate method" otherwise.
> 

Precisely. So, what is the point of including the return type in the
method signature?

> > obj.dostuff(); // trouble
> >
> > That begs the question: what is the point of making things more complex
> > than necessary.
> 
> I don't think they did make things more complex.
>

See above.

> > Anyway, as soon as you are happy with the content of the release notes,
> > I'll cut another RC and call a vote.
> 
> I've made some fixes to the parent pom, because unfortunately the
> buildNumber plugin with javasvn implementation does not work with SVN
> 1.7+ clients.
> 

Yes, I am still on version 1.6.x

> I assume you have not yet upgraded, because the "Implementation-Build"
> headers are OK in the Manifests, so that can be fixed later.
> 

Shall I go ahead and cut a new RC?

Oleg



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org


Mime
View raw message