You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cxf.apache.org by Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> on 2008/07/02 15:28:36 UTC
JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact
to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches,
but pretty much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey
has done a fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest
0.8 spec and it would be good to get people to change to using that.
However, it is a change that could affect existing code. So, should
that be part of 2.1.2 or wait for 2.2?
Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still changing)
Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
Con: it does affect existing apps
The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait
that long could be an issue.
Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list
as well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users
are willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting
it for 2.1.2.
---
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://www.dankulp.com/blog
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Brice <br...@gmail.com>.
Ok, I agree on this point, then you have won another one who support 2.1.2.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 14:43, Sergey Beryozkin <se...@iona.com>
wrote:
> I doubt a CXF JAX-RS 0.6 to 0.8 upgrade (which is by default is a breaking
> change as the JAXRS spec is a moving target) deserves a 2.2 mark. If it were
> CXF JAX-RS 0.8 to 1.0.final then yes, it would probably make sense to
> 'mark the occasion' but not because of the potential breaking changes
> between 0.8 and 1.0-final. It's not about CXF-specific breaking changes,
> it's about users depending on a the jax-rs api which is still under
> development - as such they should be prepared to recompile their code
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brice" <br...@gmail.com>
> To: <us...@cxf.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:28 PM
>
> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>
>
> Actualy I'm not saying to wait for 2.2. I'm rather proposing to label the
>> next release with your updated JAXRS work a 2.2, and the next big release
>> which is "*quite ways away*" be labeled a 2.3.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:33, Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> While it's all about the good classical versioning scheme, I'm not
>>> convinced
>>> postponing jax-rs updates up untill 2.2 is a practical idea.
>>> 2.2 will probably be released some time in the end of the year and for
>>> cxf
>>> users who prefer to stick for whatever reasons to its jax-rs
>>> implementation
>>> is not really acceptable.
>>>
>>> Note that JAX-RS itself is still in its 0.X version. Surely it's normal
>>> to
>>> expect that changes from
>>> 0,7 to 0.8 and up until 1.0 will cause some breaking changes.
>>>
>>> As such I'm against postponing it until 2.2
>>>
>>> Cheers. Sergey
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brice" <br...@gmail.com>
>>> To: <us...@cxf.apache.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:50 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I think it shouldn't be a 2.1.2, the last number should be only
>>>
>>>> incremented when the release is about fixes and doesn't break things.
>>>>
>>>> In my point of view the next version should be a 2.2 as it seems to
>>>> break
>>>> things even if it is only on the jaxrs spec, and then a 2.3 version
>>>> could
>>>> be
>>>> the next one as it seems to bring even more changes.
>>>>
>>>> While I think it cannot be entirely applied there, I'll tell you
>>>> versionning
>>>> scheme I had on some past project:
>>>> X.Y.Z-R
>>>> Where X is mean for breaking changes of the API, Y for additions to the
>>>> API,
>>>> Z for internal code changes without any API modification, and R for
>>>> patches
>>>> of the current revision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 20:08, Johnson, Eric <Er...@iona.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to
>>>>
>>>>> believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users
>>>>> of the JAX-RS stuff.
>>>>> Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not
>>>>> using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM
>>>>> To: users@cxf.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I
>>>>> suspect,
>>>>> sticking with 2.0.x.
>>>>>
>>>>> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3,
>>>>> and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who
>>>>> want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact
>>>>> > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches,
>>>>> but pretty
>>>>> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
>>>>> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and
>>>>> > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it
>>>>> is a
>>>>> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of
>>>>> 2.1.2
>>>>> > or wait for 2.2?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
>>>>> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
>>>>> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still
>>>>> > changing)
>>>>> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Con: it does affect existing apps
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
>>>>> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait
>>>>> > that long could be an issue.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list
>>>>> as
>>>>> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users
>>>>> are
>>>>> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it
>>>>> > for 2.1.2.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ---
>>>>> > Daniel Kulp
>>>>> > dkulp@apache.org
>>>>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Brice Dutheil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------
>>> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
>>> Registered Number: 171387
>>> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brice Dutheil
>>
>>
> ----------------------------
> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
> Registered Number: 171387
> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
>
--
Bryce
RE: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by "Johnson, Eric" <Er...@iona.com>.
It sounds like there is agreement that the new JAX-RS stuff should come
out sooner rather than later. The remaining issue is what to label the
release. Is this correct?
Personally, I agree with Sergey on this. The JAX-RS bump to 0.8 does not
warrant being a 2.2 release on its own merits. The spec is still in flux
and the users of the API are likely to expect some changes as the spec
matures to a 1.0.
If there are other changes that break compatibility in the more stable
parts of CXF then a bump to 2.2 would be warranted.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sergey.beryozkin@iona.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 8:44 AM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
I doubt a CXF JAX-RS 0.6 to 0.8 upgrade (which is by default is a
breaking change as the JAXRS spec is a moving target) deserves a
2.2 mark. If it were CXF JAX-RS 0.8 to 1.0.final then yes, it would
probably make sense to 'mark the occasion' but not because of the
potential breaking changes between 0.8 and 1.0-final. It's not about
CXF-specific breaking changes, it's about users depending on a the
jax-rs api which is still under development - as such they should be
prepared to recompile their code
Cheers, Sergey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brice" <br...@gmail.com>
To: <us...@cxf.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
> Actualy I'm not saying to wait for 2.2. I'm rather proposing to label
the
> next release with your updated JAXRS work a 2.2, and the next big
release
> which is "*quite ways away*" be labeled a 2.3.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:33, Sergey Beryozkin
<se...@iona.com>
> wrote:
>
>> While it's all about the good classical versioning scheme, I'm not
>> convinced
>> postponing jax-rs updates up untill 2.2 is a practical idea.
>> 2.2 will probably be released some time in the end of the year and
for cxf
>> users who prefer to stick for whatever reasons to its jax-rs
implementation
>> is not really acceptable.
>>
>> Note that JAX-RS itself is still in its 0.X version. Surely it's
normal to
>> expect that changes from
>> 0,7 to 0.8 and up until 1.0 will cause some breaking changes.
>>
>> As such I'm against postponing it until 2.2
>>
>> Cheers. Sergey
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brice" <br...@gmail.com>
>> To: <us...@cxf.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:50 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>>
>>
>> Well, I think it shouldn't be a 2.1.2, the last number should be
only
>>> incremented when the release is about fixes and doesn't break
things.
>>>
>>> In my point of view the next version should be a 2.2 as it seems to
break
>>> things even if it is only on the jaxrs spec, and then a 2.3 version
could
>>> be
>>> the next one as it seems to bring even more changes.
>>>
>>> While I think it cannot be entirely applied there, I'll tell you
>>> versionning
>>> scheme I had on some past project:
>>> X.Y.Z-R
>>> Where X is mean for breaking changes of the API, Y for additions to
the
>>> API,
>>> Z for internal code changes without any API modification, and R for
>>> patches
>>> of the current revision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 20:08, Johnson, Eric <Er...@iona.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me
to
>>>> believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of
users
>>>> of the JAX-RS stuff.
>>>> Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not
>>>> using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM
>>>> To: users@cxf.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I
suspect,
>>>> sticking with 2.0.x.
>>>>
>>>> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in
2.1.3,
>>>> and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people
who
>>>> want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>>>> >
>>>> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the
impact
>>>> > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch
branches,
>>>> but pretty
>>>> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done
a
>>>> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec
and
>>>> > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However,
it
>>>> is a
>>>> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be
part of
>>>> 2.1.2
>>>> > or wait for 2.2?
>>>> >
>>>> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
>>>> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
>>>> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still
>>>> > changing)
>>>> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>>>> >
>>>> > Con: it does affect existing apps
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways
away.
>>>> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them
wait
>>>> > that long could be an issue.
>>>> >
>>>> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users
list
>>>> as
>>>> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the
users
>>>> are
>>>> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting
it
>>>> > for 2.1.2.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ---
>>>> > Daniel Kulp
>>>> > dkulp@apache.org
>>>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brice Dutheil
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------
>> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
>> Registered Number: 171387
>> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4,
Ireland
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Brice Dutheil
>
----------------------------
IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4,
Ireland
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <se...@iona.com>.
I doubt a CXF JAX-RS 0.6 to 0.8 upgrade (which is by default is a breaking change as the JAXRS spec is a moving target) deserves a
2.2 mark. If it were CXF JAX-RS 0.8 to 1.0.final then yes, it would probably make sense to 'mark the occasion' but not because of
the potential breaking changes between 0.8 and 1.0-final. It's not about CXF-specific breaking changes, it's about users depending
on a the jax-rs api which is still under development - as such they should be prepared to recompile their code
Cheers, Sergey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brice" <br...@gmail.com>
To: <us...@cxf.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
> Actualy I'm not saying to wait for 2.2. I'm rather proposing to label the
> next release with your updated JAXRS work a 2.2, and the next big release
> which is "*quite ways away*" be labeled a 2.3.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:33, Sergey Beryozkin <se...@iona.com>
> wrote:
>
>> While it's all about the good classical versioning scheme, I'm not
>> convinced
>> postponing jax-rs updates up untill 2.2 is a practical idea.
>> 2.2 will probably be released some time in the end of the year and for cxf
>> users who prefer to stick for whatever reasons to its jax-rs implementation
>> is not really acceptable.
>>
>> Note that JAX-RS itself is still in its 0.X version. Surely it's normal to
>> expect that changes from
>> 0,7 to 0.8 and up until 1.0 will cause some breaking changes.
>>
>> As such I'm against postponing it until 2.2
>>
>> Cheers. Sergey
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brice" <br...@gmail.com>
>> To: <us...@cxf.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:50 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>>
>>
>> Well, I think it shouldn't be a 2.1.2, the last number should be only
>>> incremented when the release is about fixes and doesn't break things.
>>>
>>> In my point of view the next version should be a 2.2 as it seems to break
>>> things even if it is only on the jaxrs spec, and then a 2.3 version could
>>> be
>>> the next one as it seems to bring even more changes.
>>>
>>> While I think it cannot be entirely applied there, I'll tell you
>>> versionning
>>> scheme I had on some past project:
>>> X.Y.Z-R
>>> Where X is mean for breaking changes of the API, Y for additions to the
>>> API,
>>> Z for internal code changes without any API modification, and R for
>>> patches
>>> of the current revision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 20:08, Johnson, Eric <Er...@iona.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to
>>>> believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users
>>>> of the JAX-RS stuff.
>>>> Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not
>>>> using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM
>>>> To: users@cxf.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect,
>>>> sticking with 2.0.x.
>>>>
>>>> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3,
>>>> and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who
>>>> want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>>>> >
>>>> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact
>>>> > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches,
>>>> but pretty
>>>> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
>>>> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and
>>>> > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it
>>>> is a
>>>> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of
>>>> 2.1.2
>>>> > or wait for 2.2?
>>>> >
>>>> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
>>>> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
>>>> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still
>>>> > changing)
>>>> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>>>> >
>>>> > Con: it does affect existing apps
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
>>>> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait
>>>> > that long could be an issue.
>>>> >
>>>> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list
>>>> as
>>>> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users
>>>> are
>>>> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it
>>>> > for 2.1.2.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ---
>>>> > Daniel Kulp
>>>> > dkulp@apache.org
>>>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Brice Dutheil
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------
>> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
>> Registered Number: 171387
>> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Brice Dutheil
>
----------------------------
IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Brice <br...@gmail.com>.
Actualy I'm not saying to wait for 2.2. I'm rather proposing to label the
next release with your updated JAXRS work a 2.2, and the next big release
which is "*quite ways away*" be labeled a 2.3.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:33, Sergey Beryozkin <se...@iona.com>
wrote:
> While it's all about the good classical versioning scheme, I'm not
> convinced
> postponing jax-rs updates up untill 2.2 is a practical idea.
> 2.2 will probably be released some time in the end of the year and for cxf
> users who prefer to stick for whatever reasons to its jax-rs implementation
> is not really acceptable.
>
> Note that JAX-RS itself is still in its 0.X version. Surely it's normal to
> expect that changes from
> 0,7 to 0.8 and up until 1.0 will cause some breaking changes.
>
> As such I'm against postponing it until 2.2
>
> Cheers. Sergey
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brice" <br...@gmail.com>
> To: <us...@cxf.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:50 PM
>
> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>
>
> Well, I think it shouldn't be a 2.1.2, the last number should be only
>> incremented when the release is about fixes and doesn't break things.
>>
>> In my point of view the next version should be a 2.2 as it seems to break
>> things even if it is only on the jaxrs spec, and then a 2.3 version could
>> be
>> the next one as it seems to bring even more changes.
>>
>> While I think it cannot be entirely applied there, I'll tell you
>> versionning
>> scheme I had on some past project:
>> X.Y.Z-R
>> Where X is mean for breaking changes of the API, Y for additions to the
>> API,
>> Z for internal code changes without any API modification, and R for
>> patches
>> of the current revision.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 20:08, Johnson, Eric <Er...@iona.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to
>>> believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users
>>> of the JAX-RS stuff.
>>> Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not
>>> using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM
>>> To: users@cxf.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>>>
>>> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect,
>>> sticking with 2.0.x.
>>>
>>> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3,
>>> and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who
>>> want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>>> >
>>> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact
>>> > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches,
>>> but pretty
>>> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
>>> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and
>>> > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it
>>> is a
>>> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of
>>> 2.1.2
>>> > or wait for 2.2?
>>> >
>>> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
>>> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
>>> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still
>>> > changing)
>>> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>>> >
>>> > Con: it does affect existing apps
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
>>> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait
>>> > that long could be an issue.
>>> >
>>> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list
>>> as
>>> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users
>>> are
>>> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it
>>> > for 2.1.2.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ---
>>> > Daniel Kulp
>>> > dkulp@apache.org
>>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brice Dutheil
>>
>>
> ----------------------------
> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
> Registered Number: 171387
> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
>
--
Brice Dutheil
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <se...@iona.com>.
While it's all about the good classical versioning scheme, I'm not convinced
postponing jax-rs updates up untill 2.2 is a practical idea.
2.2 will probably be released some time in the end of the year and for cxf users who prefer to stick for whatever reasons to its
jax-rs implementation is not really acceptable.
Note that JAX-RS itself is still in its 0.X version. Surely it's normal to expect that changes from
0,7 to 0.8 and up until 1.0 will cause some breaking changes.
As such I'm against postponing it until 2.2
Cheers. Sergey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brice" <br...@gmail.com>
To: <us...@cxf.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
> Well, I think it shouldn't be a 2.1.2, the last number should be only
> incremented when the release is about fixes and doesn't break things.
>
> In my point of view the next version should be a 2.2 as it seems to break
> things even if it is only on the jaxrs spec, and then a 2.3 version could be
> the next one as it seems to bring even more changes.
>
> While I think it cannot be entirely applied there, I'll tell you versionning
> scheme I had on some past project:
> X.Y.Z-R
> Where X is mean for breaking changes of the API, Y for additions to the API,
> Z for internal code changes without any API modification, and R for patches
> of the current revision.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 20:08, Johnson, Eric <Er...@iona.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to
>> believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users
>> of the JAX-RS stuff.
>> Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not
>> using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM
>> To: users@cxf.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>>
>> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect,
>> sticking with 2.0.x.
>>
>> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3,
>> and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who
>> want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>> >
>> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact
>> > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches,
>> but pretty
>> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
>> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and
>> > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it
>> is a
>> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of
>> 2.1.2
>> > or wait for 2.2?
>> >
>> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
>> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
>> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still
>> > changing)
>> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>> >
>> > Con: it does affect existing apps
>> >
>> >
>> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
>> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait
>> > that long could be an issue.
>> >
>> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list
>> as
>> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users
>> are
>> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it
>> > for 2.1.2.
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > Daniel Kulp
>> > dkulp@apache.org
>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Brice Dutheil
>
----------------------------
IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Brice <br...@gmail.com>.
Well, I think it shouldn't be a 2.1.2, the last number should be only
incremented when the release is about fixes and doesn't break things.
In my point of view the next version should be a 2.2 as it seems to break
things even if it is only on the jaxrs spec, and then a 2.3 version could be
the next one as it seems to bring even more changes.
While I think it cannot be entirely applied there, I'll tell you versionning
scheme I had on some past project:
X.Y.Z-R
Where X is mean for breaking changes of the API, Y for additions to the API,
Z for internal code changes without any API modification, and R for patches
of the current revision.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 20:08, Johnson, Eric <Er...@iona.com> wrote:
> I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to
> believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users
> of the JAX-RS stuff.
> Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not
> using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM
> To: users@cxf.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
>
> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect,
> sticking with 2.0.x.
>
> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3,
> and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who
> want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
> >
> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact
> > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches,
> but pretty
> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and
> > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it
> is a
> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of
> 2.1.2
> > or wait for 2.2?
> >
> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still
> > changing)
> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
> >
> > Con: it does affect existing apps
> >
> >
> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait
> > that long could be an issue.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list
> as
> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users
> are
> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it
> > for 2.1.2.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Brice Dutheil
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Anthony Schexnaildre <ap...@gmail.com>.
+1 on 2.1.2 also
On Jul 2, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I
> suspect,
> sticking with 2.0.x.
>
> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in
> 2.1.3, and
> try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who
> want to
> stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>>
>> In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the
>> impact to a
>> bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches,
>> but pretty
>> much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
>> fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec
>> and it
>> would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it
>> is a
>> change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part
>> of 2.1.2
>> or wait for 2.2?
>>
>> Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
>> Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
>> Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still
>> changing)
>> Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>>
>> Con: it does affect existing apps
>>
>>
>> The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
>> People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait
>> that long
>> could be an issue.
>>
>> Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users
>> list as
>> well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users
>> are
>> willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it
>> for
>> 2.1.2.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Daniel Kulp
>> dkulp@apache.org
>> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
RE: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by "Johnson, Eric" <Er...@iona.com>.
I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to
believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users
of the JAX-RS stuff.
Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not
using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target.
-----Original Message-----
From: Benson Margulies [mailto:bimargulies@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM
To: users@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect,
sticking with 2.0.x.
A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3,
and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who
want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>
> In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact
> to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches,
but pretty
> much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
> fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and
> it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it
is a
> change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of
2.1.2
> or wait for 2.2?
>
> Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
> Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
> Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still
> changing)
> Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>
> Con: it does affect existing apps
>
>
> The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
> People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait
> that long could be an issue.
>
> Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list
as
> well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users
are
> willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it
> for 2.1.2.
>
>
> ---
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
>
>
>
>
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@verizon.net>.
+1 for 2.1.2. People who want to code to the JAX-RS specification, by
definition, want to code to the JAX-RS specification, and understand
that their code needs to evolve as JAX-RS does, until JAX-RS is at a
final released version. It would be a different story if these were
changes being made on top of an official released version of JAX-RS
(i.e., JAX-RS 2.0 instead of 1.0)--but JSR 311 isn't there yet. Another
problem with placing it at 2.2 is that CXF would then need to be
maintaining two versions of JAX-RS, the real one on the 2.2 branch and a
mutant and undocumented one on 2.1.x.
Glen
2008-07-02 Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect,
> sticking with 2.0.x.
>
> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3, and
> try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who want to
> stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
> >
> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact to a
> > bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches, but pretty
> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and it
> > would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it is a
> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of 2.1.2
> > or wait for 2.2?
> >
> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still changing)
> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
> >
> > Con: it does affect existing apps
> >
> >
> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait that long
> > could be an issue.
> >
> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list as
> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users are
> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it for
> > 2.1.2.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Daniel Kulp
> > dkulp@apache.org
> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>.
I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I suspect,
sticking with 2.0.x.
A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3, and
try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who want to
stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>
> In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact to a
> bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches, but pretty
> much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a
> fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and it
> would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it is a
> change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of 2.1.2
> or wait for 2.2?
>
> Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
> Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
> Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still changing)
> Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>
> Con: it does affect existing apps
>
>
> The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away.
> People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait that long
> could be an issue.
>
> Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list as
> well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users are
> willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it for
> 2.1.2.
>
>
> ---
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
>
>
>
>
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <se...@iona.com>.
Hi
I was about to send an update to the user's list.
This change, even though it's pretty big, should only affect the users who use
custom JAX-RS message body readers and/or writers. There've been patches
applied to the existing providers (JSON one), XMLObjects ones are shipped by CXF,
so it's only those users which have enhanced the existing providers and use them locally or use some other custom ones
which would be affected - note no changes to the actual application interfaces/code would be needed.
There's only one minor change which is actually to do with fixing the annotation inheritance issue bug which might affect some users
at the application level code....I'll send a seperate mail with the details...
Cheers, Sergey
>
> Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>
> In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch
> branches, but pretty much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS
> stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it is a change that could
> affect existing code. So, should that be part of 2.1.2 or wait for 2.2?
>
> Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
> Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
> Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still changing)
> Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>
> Con: it does affect existing apps
>
>
> The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away. People have been asking for some of this stuff so making
> them wait that long could be an issue.
>
> Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list as well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If
> the users are willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it for 2.1.2.
>
>
> ---
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
>
>
----------------------------
IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2
Posted by Sergey Beryozkin <se...@iona.com>.
Hi
I was about to send an update to the user's list.
This change, even though it's pretty big, should only affect the users who use
custom JAX-RS message body readers and/or writers. There've been patches
applied to the existing providers (JSON one), XMLObjects ones are shipped by CXF,
so it's only those users which have enhanced the existing providers and use them locally or use some other custom ones
which would be affected - note no changes to the actual application interfaces/code would be needed.
There's only one minor change which is actually to do with fixing the annotation inheritance issue bug which might affect some users
at the application level code....I'll send a seperate mail with the details...
Cheers, Sergey
>
> Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion:
>
> In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch
> branches, but pretty much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS
> stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it is a change that could
> affect existing code. So, should that be part of 2.1.2 or wait for 2.2?
>
> Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2:
> Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed
> Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still changing)
> Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway
>
> Con: it does affect existing apps
>
>
> The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away. People have been asking for some of this stuff so making
> them wait that long could be an issue.
>
> Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list as well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If
> the users are willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it for 2.1.2.
>
>
> ---
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
>
>
----------------------------
IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
Registered Number: 171387
Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland