Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdi-dev] Any opposition to exploring semantic versioning via OSGi annotations?

+1 from me! In MicroProfile, I got semantic versioning utilized in MicroProfile Config and then it was adopted by the subsequence specifications (I think all of them). Semantic Versioning policy played an essential role towards working out which packages have major or minor or no changes. The good news is that there is a semantic versioning plugin. With this plugin, when we update any APIs, the tool will work out whether we introduced any backward incompatible changes. At the moment, there was no automation tool available in Jakarta EE and we were pretty manually working out whether breaking changes were introduced. Sometimes it was not easy.
With the current issue CDI is facing regarding the impacting on Transaction, if we semantic versioning the packages, we can work out whether the packages Transaction uses have major/minor/no updates. Then, we can tell Transaction to perform major/minor/no updates.

p.s. I brought up the idea of adopting semantic versioning in Jakarta EE platform calls on 24th August 2021. You can see the discussion here (2021-08-24 and then 08-31). There was no objection from the platform group. The spec group can try and then decide.

Thanks
Emily



On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 5:29 PM Scott Stark <starksm64@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So one of the goals of the platform is to introduce a stronger semantic versioning model. The general issue and associated platform dev thread is captured in this issue:

BJ Hargrove of the Open Liberty team and OSGi working group volunteered to explore what an update of the CDI artifacts to make use of the OSGi artifacts would entail. There is no point in doing this if we have a hard stance about introducing a build time only dependency on the OSGi annotations. There is an ongoing discussion about potentially introducing a similar set of annotations in Jakarta, but any current prototype effort would have to be based on the OSGi library.

Thoughts?

_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev


--
Thanks
Emily


Back to the top