river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Calum Shaw-Mackay <calum.shawmac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Cooperative Distributed computing - Versioning over time - Container Metadata.
Date Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:55:55 GMT
> Interesting.
> Perhaps Marshalled object instances should also be decorated.

Yeah you'd need somewhere to start, and as I mentioned below about
transparency, you'd possibly need a
DEFAULT or CURRENT version, because if you're bringing in an object
foreign to the VM, and you're using
static analysis, you'd need to have the bytecodes available to
actually compare it against, having an initial
version identifier would give it a head start in terms of performance,
and you don't want to brute-force
hammer the network bringing in multiple dl jars, for a class that has
not been seen in any version in this JVM session

I think the more 'hints' you could provide to the classloader, through
either compatible version ranges or soft links
the better.

>> Whichever way you want to tackle this, you'll need it to be as
>> transparent a mechanism as possible so that service/bundles/clients
>> that don;t specify versions work as they always have,
> Thanks Calum,  good point, when version metadata doesn't exist, the results
> from Static Analysis alone could be utilised to find API compatible import
> packages.  I guess classes lacking version metadata could be treated as
> version 0.  If someone later decides to add version metadata, perhaps after
> correcting a bug, the higher versioned package would be preferred, provided
> it remains API compatible and shares the same fully qualified package name.

Yeah I'd say a DEFAULT (i.e. 0, although that itself may go through
changes in time) and perhaps symlink-type versioning including a

In a way, what you don't want is to break compatibility unnecessarily.


View raw message