hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] HttpComponents Core 4.2 release based on RC1
Date Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:07:08 GMT
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.

> 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]

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

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


Mime
View raw message