Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] VOTE: backward compatibility for descriptor

["kzr@xxxxxxxxxxx" <kzr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

#3 is my vote.

-Kenji Kazumura

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
> Bill Shannon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 4:54 AM
> To: jakartaee-platform developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [jakartaee-platform-dev] VOTE: backward compatibility for descriptor schemas
> 
> After the discussion in today's meeting, I agreed to send out a list
> of alternatives and ask for votes.  We'll tally the votes and make a
> decision in next week's meeting.
> 
> Here's the alternatives we're considering:
> 
> 1. Support for Jakarta EE 8 and earlier schemas is *optional* in
>    Jakarta EE 9 products.
> 
> 2. Support for Jakarta EE 8 and earlier schemas is *required* in
>    Jakarta EE 9 products.
> 
> 3. Support for Jakarta EE 8 *but not* earlier schemas is *required* in
>    Jakarta EE 9 products; support for schemas earlier than Jakarta EE 8
>    is *optional* in Jakarta EE 9 products.
> 
> I'm not going to reiterate the pros and cons, but if you have any questions
> about why or why not to support one of these options, let me know.
> 
> Note that the "earlier" criteria can be somewhat confusing since not all
> schemas were updated in Jakarta EE 8 (really Java EE 8) so some of the
> "most current" schemas are from Java EE 7 or earlier.  In such cases these
> would still be considered Jakarta EE 8 schemas.
> 
> I'm sure there are other alternatives that are possible, but I don't think
> we need to make this more complex at this point.
> 
> Vote now!  We'll decide next week.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Bill Shannon wrote on 1/20/20 12:38 PM:
> > We need to update all the descriptor schemas to switch to a new URL.
> > What should we do about support for the old schemas?
> >
> > Should we handle this just like support for the old package names and
> > leave it to products to decide whether or not to support the old schemas?
> >
> > Or should we continue to require that products support all the old schemas
> > as well as the new version?
> >
> >
> > At first it seemed simpler and cleaner if new products with no need for
> > backward compatibility could just support the new schema.  But just like
> > in the past, the schemas will continue to evolve as the specs evolve and
> > products will need to be able to support multiple schemas.  So, in the
> > long run, it's not clear this really saves a lot for new products.
> >
> > I guess I'm inclined to say that products must support all defined versions
> > of the schema and this is not a "backward compatibility" issue.
> >
> > Comments?
> > _______________________________________________
> > jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> > jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev