You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> on 2008/12/05 17:44:14 UTC
[2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
Why are all the OSGi versions for Tuscany bundles set to 1.4 and not 2.0.1
or similar?
Simon
Re: [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
I agree. Let's stick to the fixed versioning scheme.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Edwards" <mi...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:46 PM
To: <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
> Luciano Resende wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> 3) Do we need to adopt a version range or a fixed version for
>>>> Import-Package headers?
>>> Initially a fixed version. As we get more confident we could look at
>>> ranges
>>> but I'm a little skeptical at the moment.
>>
>> +1
>>
> My view, expressed in a previous discussion relating to OSGi, is that if
> we are prepared to declare a range for 3rd party libraries, then we are
> taking it upon ourselves to test that our code does indeed work with all
> the versions of the 3rd party code that fit in the range. This is a
> potentially large burden since the combinations of different versions of
> different 3rd party packages rapidly becomes a very large number.
>
> I'm not sure that this is going to work, so my inclination is to stick
> with specific versions, unless we develop some kind of testing regime that
> will allow for automated testing of the different versions.
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
Re: [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
Posted by Mike Edwards <mi...@gmail.com>.
Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> 3) Do we need to adopt a version range or a fixed version for
>>> Import-Package headers?
>> Initially a fixed version. As we get more confident we could look at ranges
>> but I'm a little skeptical at the moment.
>
> +1
>
My view, expressed in a previous discussion relating to OSGi, is that if we are prepared to declare
a range for 3rd party libraries, then we are taking it upon ourselves to test that our code does
indeed work with all the versions of the 3rd party code that fit in the range. This is a
potentially large burden since the combinations of different versions of different 3rd party
packages rapidly becomes a very large number.
I'm not sure that this is going to work, so my inclination is to stick with specific versions,
unless we develop some kind of testing regime that will allow for automated testing of the different
versions.
Yours, Mike.
Re: [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> 3) Do we need to adopt a version range or a fixed version for
>> Import-Package headers?
>
> Initially a fixed version. As we get more confident we could look at ranges
> but I'm a little skeptical at the moment.
+1
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
My immediate thoughts...
Simon
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a left-over. We can set them to 2.0.0 as the starting point.
>
> A versioning strategy is more interesting as we release the code over time.
> There are a few questions to be answered:
>
> 1) Should we always change the bundle package versions to be consistent
> with the release version?
>
Yes
> 2) How do we version the minor releases? Do we want to support the
> package level compatibility within a version range?
>
Not sure what this means. We have had previous minor releases such as
1.3.1.Do you mean that a runtime could be made up of some 1.3 bundles
mixed in
with some 1.3.1 bundles? I guess that's a strategy that could be adopted if
you wanted to patch a single bundle (or small number of bundles). We'd have
to have a testing strategy to cover these cases though.
3) Do we need to adopt a version range or a fixed version for Import-Package
> headers?
>
Initially a fixed version. As we get more confident we could look at ranges
but I'm a little skeptical at the moment.
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> *From:* Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 05, 2008 8:44 AM
> *To:* tuscany-dev <de...@tuscany.apache.org>
> *Subject:* [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
>
> Why are all the OSGi versions for Tuscany bundles set to 1.4 and not 2.0.1
> or similar?
>
> Simon
>
Re: [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
This is a left-over. We can set them to 2.0.0 as the starting point.
A versioning strategy is more interesting as we release the code over time. There are a few questions to be answered:
1) Should we always change the bundle package versions to be consistent with the release version?
2) How do we version the minor releases? Do we want to support the package level compatibility within a version range?
3) Do we need to adopt a version range or a fixed version for Import-Package headers?
Thanks,
Raymond
From: Simon Laws
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:44 AM
To: tuscany-dev
Subject: [2.x] OSGi version for Tuscany are 1.4?
Why are all the OSGi versions for Tuscany bundles set to 1.4 and not 2.0.1 or similar?
Simon