Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80CA8104F7 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 23241 invoked by uid 500); 19 Feb 2014 22:21:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-logging-log4j-dev-archive@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 23200 invoked by uid 500); 19 Feb 2014 22:21:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Log4J Developers List" Reply-To: "Log4J Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-dev@logging.apache.org Received: (qmail 23192 invoked by uid 99); 19 Feb 2014 22:21:25 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:21:25 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of boards@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.41 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.41] (HELO mail-oa0-f41.google.com) (209.85.219.41) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:21:19 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id o6so830151oag.0 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:20:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=jRmjHkx0/V6dTNvLpIMElT6a6u0p6p9tHG++unFtcpY=; b=P/4zj+rDwkiIoym2lm2ccRcPWaT+17avEChusk07+U1jaoBeYl8AciNTs+WknpfwDl Udvsw6rEp25eL6YvcDaZphz3KBd3wScqhUyzB7O8J/0zhjw17n7CsRK+reiLm0/SjiY9 Ko5BY37tHRj2e7xNhH5b+yMwFpjDf0Iw63MYSGBbSS4vb9evDdBQ3SFKuaCQgkWq/lnb b4rXa4/LpDEbwS1hL4LjXZ2pRlLgacOIFjNMD1cyO+UmzqIN9TfrHGJgoTbm2LL5/WYb 7ISpHSuVKlkkioZG3SWT+q56XJ/uogzCNP9CWqh+dJiTolijlXNi/EVkLGE+IPYUlJXJ eIpA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.148.106 with SMTP id tr10mr3381154obb.65.1392848458867; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:20:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.167.40 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:20:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:20:58 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: OSGi version numbering. From: Matt Sicker To: Log4J Developers List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012940d89deadc04f2c9cdb6 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e012940d89deadc04f2c9cdb6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Checks the manifest. In the Export-Package attribute, each package is paired with a version number. Those are the version numbers used by OSGi, so I'd assume they can differ from the jar name. On 19 February 2014 16:07, Remko Popma wrote: > Do OSGi containers look at the jar name or at the manifest for version > info? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2014/02/20, at 1:31, Matt Sicker wrote: > > Just a quick follow-up to making things nice for the bundles. Version > numbers in OSGi are in the format: "major.minor.micro.thing" where the > major.minor.micro is the usual semantic versioning separated by dots, and > the last part can be a string like "rc1" or "beta-2" or "GA" or whatever as > is commonly done by many projects. By following the proper versioning > scheme, consumers of these bundles can specify a version range such as > [2.0, 2.1) so that all 2.0.x versions are considered, but not 2.1.x. > > Overall, this isn't too different (if at all) from common practices for > versioning, but it's nice to keep in mind if you guys don't like increasing > the minor version very often. > > -- > Matt Sicker > > -- Matt Sicker --089e012940d89deadc04f2c9cdb6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Checks the manifest. In the Export-Package attribute, each= package is paired with a version number. Those are the version numbers use= d by OSGi, so I'd assume they can differ from the jar name.


On 19 February 2014 16:07, Remko Popma <= span dir=3D"ltr"><remko.popma@gmail.com> wrote:
Do OSGi containers look at the jar name or at the ma= nifest for version info?

Sent from my iPhone

On 2014/02/20, at 1:31, Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com> wrote:

Just a quick follow-up to making things nice for the bundles. Vers= ion numbers in OSGi are in the format: "major.minor.micro.thing" = where the major.minor.micro is the usual semantic versioning separated by d= ots, and the last part can be a string like "rc1" or "beta-2= " or "GA" or whatever as is commonly done by many projects. = By following the proper versioning scheme, consumers of these bundles can s= pecify a version range such as [2.0, 2.1) so that all 2.0.x versions are co= nsidered, but not 2.1.x.

Overall, this isn't too different (if at all) from commo= n practices for versioning, but it's nice to keep in mind if you guys d= on't like increasing the minor version very often.

--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>



--
Matt Sicker <boards@gmail.com>
--089e012940d89deadc04f2c9cdb6--