Hi Dominik,
thanks for your comments - it's never too late! I agree
with
you that it's not an ideal situation. I came to the
conclusion that having the same version number for all
components
just wouldn't work when Paolo contributed his .Net
client.
The M2MQTT version number (3.6 at the time), was
important to
Paolo. I felt it was better to allow each component its
own
number. Newer components might want to start at 1.0
when they
reach "production" level for the first time.
I prefer your option 1. I like that idea a lot -
especially a
funny name sequence :-) The Eclipse project documents
have
this requirement for release names:
The release name must start with a number, and may
contain major
and minor version numbers, a service number, and extra
information;
e.g. "9", "5.6 (Kepler)", or "1.0.1
The starting number could be a simple sequence number,
then
followed by the name.
You said
"Please add the current version numbering
for each
library to the Paho main page." Which page do you
mean -
https://www.eclipse.org/paho/
? (I have updated the downloads page to the latest
level for
each package -
https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.paho/downloads.)
That people are still using the 0.4 version of the Java
client and
not aware it is outdated is a problem I'm aware of. I
removed
it from the Nexus repo but it caused an outcry so we had
to put it
back. The problem is that it has a simpler name than
the
later builds so people tend to find it first. I have
updated
the downloads page, and the Java client page at
https://www.eclipse.org/paho/clients/java/
with the note:
Note: The Java client library and utility
components
mqtt-client and mqtt-utility are old and only kept
for reference.
They should not be used and may be removed in the
future.
org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3 and
org.eclipse.paho.mqtt.utility
should be used instead.
But the situation could still probably be improved.
Ian
On 02/26/2015 01:31 PM,
Dominik
Obermaier wrote:
First of all, thanks a lot to everyone who
contributed to the Paho
1.1 release, awesome work!
I don’t know if this was already addressed, but the
versioning of
the single parts of Paho is very confusing - at
least for me. From
the release notes for the Paho 1.1 release from [1]:
Updated versions of the existing client libraries:
1) Roger Light’s Python MQTT client, version 1.1
2) The full fat Posix/Windows/MacOS C client,
updated to version
1.0.3
3) The Java MQTT client, updated to version 1.0.2
4) The _javascript_ MQTT client, updated to version
1.0.1
I know it’s pretty tough to find a consistent
version numbering for
all libraries, especially since they can have
different development
speeds. From my point of view and from the feedback
I had from
other people, it’s extremely confusing for any
end-user who is not
interested in all details and sub-libraries of Paho,
that the Paho
Release 1.1 contains Java Paho 1.0.2. In fact, this
is not really
obvious from the current Paho web site which version
to
use.
I have two possible competing suggestions for
version numbering and
the release-“train”:
1. Name the Paho Release “Train”, not with numbers
but with names.
That would mean Paho does not use any version
numbering for
scheduled releases but let’s say it’s named
"Q1/2015 release”
or “Mars release" or even give some funny names like
the Linux
kernel guys do. But don’t use version numbers which
do not match
with the sub-libraries in the umbrella release. In
this case, each
library can have it’s own version numbering. It’s
very important to
have a table available with all concrete version
numbers on the
website and in the release notes, otherwise it’s
still too hard for
people figuring out the right versions.
2. The Paho umbrella releases are numbered (like
1.1). In this
case, all client libraries *must* use the exact same
numbering (at
least MAJOR and MINOR version numbers), so e.g. the
_javascript_ and
the Java library both have 1.1.0. After the initial
Paho-“train"
release, of course any sub-library can update bugfix
versions
accordingly if bugfix releases are done outside the
release
train.
One general suggestions: Please add the current
version numbering
for each library to the Paho main page. It’s not
always obvious
what the current version of each library is.
Does any of these suggestions make sense to you?
From my point of
view any of these suggestions would greatly help
increase usability
and reduce confusion for users. Also, this may help
to reduce the
fragmentation of the Paho libraries (there are e.g.
many 0.4.0 Paho
users out there who don’t even know they have a very
outdated
version).
Hope I didn’t come too late for this discussion - if
it was already
discussed some other time, I apologize for bringing
it back on the
table. This is a very serious and important
usability issue for end
users in my opinion, though.
Best regards,
Dominik
_______________________________________________
paho-dev mailing list
paho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/paho-dev
--
Ian Craggs
icraggs@xxxxxxxxxx IBM United Kingdom
Paho Project Lead; Committer on Mosquitto
_______________________________________________
paho-dev mailing list
paho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password,
or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/paho-dev