I understand your hestiation and actually agree with you from the
"released code" point of view. However, we spend a lot of time dealing
with code and API that is in development. If we are to have any hope
of provisioning and managing that, we need to know the difference
between the various iterations of the packages. For example, when
someone adds an API during the dev cycle and you want use it, you need
to import the right version of the package to ensure you get it.
Changing the first three segments version number of the package for
every change done in the dev cycle feels too disruptive.
To a certain extent this could be handled in the provisioning system
but that would force the situation of bundles in a particular context
(e.g., a build "lineup"). That is, bundles would no longer be
completely/accurately self-describing.
Jeff
BJ Hargrave wrote:
I would be extremely cautious about
using qualifier on package versions. I must say that I have never seen
it done.
It seems an over specification. I
think
that having build tools to advise you to increment the micro is more
than
sufficient.
--
| From:
|
Thomas
Watson/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
|
| To:
|
Equinox development
mailing list <equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| Date:
|
2008/09/02 10:45 AM
|
| Subject:
|
Re: [equinox-dev]
.qualifier for export
package? |
Before recommending every package uses a qualifier I
have
the following concerns:
1) In Eclipse we have loads of packages. We better make sure all
identical
qualifier Strings are shared (interned etc.) for performance reasons.
Today
when loading from a cached state we share identical Version objects.
Because
package versions are managed independently we will end up with lots of
different versions that have the same qualifier exported by a bundle.
We
also will limit the ability to share Version objects across bundles
because
each will use a different qualifier (unless we happen to use the same
CVS
tag).
2) The qualifier will change even in cases where no code was touched in
the package. I'm not sure this is a valid concern. The code got
recompiled
so perhaps changing the version qualifier is warranted. But we need to
think about the consequences. For example, I can see API tooling start
to complain that the micro version of a package should be increased to
indicate a bug "fix" when comparing the package versions with
a base line. It will notice that the qualifier changed from a previous
release but the micro version was not increased.
3) What about versions of packages which we do not maintain the API for
at Eclipse. Things like org.osgi.* and orbit bundles. Shouldn't we use
the version the producers of the API have defined? Adding a qualifier
here
does not seem right, especially if a qualifier is already defined by
the
producers.
On the surface this sounds like a fine idea, and I am not completely
against
it. But I would like to take the first step of versioning the Eclipse
API
packages first to see what all the issues are with independent package
versioning. I'm sure we will run into other hurdles along the way. For
example, how does a developer maintain the version of a split package
across
all the bundles the package is split?
Tom
 "Chris
Aniszczyk" ---08/31/2008 02:46:34 PM---On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 5:53
AM, Jeff McAffer < jeff@xxxxxxxxx
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
As version numbers on packages become more prevalent
does
it start making sense to use .qualifier on them in addition to bundle
version
numbers? The logic here is the same as for bundles. we rev the version
number of the bundle to match the most extreme change for that release.
in between if hte provisioning system is going to do its job, it needs
to have different version numbers. Teh .qualifier allows for the
auto-qualification
of bundle version numbers. The same is true for folks using
import/export
package.
+1
In PDE, I plan on releasing some builder logic to flag exported
packages
without versions with a warning in M2. API Tooling also has items in
plan
that deal with package versioning, but that will be post M2
Thoughts for how/if this should be introduced?
I say before M2, we formulate a plan across the Eclipse proper projects
to deal with versions on package exports. We can than look at pushing
that
plan to other Eclipse.org projects as a best practice once we get the
hang
of it.
--
Cheers,
~ Chris Aniszczyk_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
_______________________________________________
equinox-dev mailing list
equinox-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/equinox-dev
|
