users@jersey.java.net

Re: [Jersey] Releasing Jersey 1.1.5 on the week of Jan 18th

From: Ross McDonald <rossajmcd_at_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:18:35 -0800 (PST)

Hi, just my thoughts...

I don't believe the Jersey version needs to be tied to the JAX-RS version,
as it is already documented which versions correspond. Additionally, a big
jump in the version number could cause blind panic, making people believe it
is harder to upgrade their apps than it is in reality, perhaps it would hint
at major breaking changes... ?

Cheers,

Ross



Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Erdinc Yilmazel wrote:
>
>> Why not 2.0?
>>
>
> Because i did not want to confuse developers into thinking there had
> been a 2.0 release of JAX-RS. Of course even though a 2.0 release of
> JAX-RS has not occurred some might think it plausible but a 3.0 is not
> so plausible, and from then on there should be enough distance between
> the two versions. as any new major version of JAX-RS will result in a
> new major version of Jersey.
>
> Does that seem reasonable?
>
> Paul.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Paul Sandoz <Paul.Sandoz_at_sun.com>
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We plan to release Jersey 1.1.5 on the week on Jan 18th.
>>
>> Jakub is working hard on the OSGi stuff but we want to make sure we
>> get it right, and it might require some more soak time in the trunk
>> (currently it is in a branch) for other developers to have a play
>> with and provide feedback.
>>
>>
>> After that release i am proposing to change the versioning scheme of
>> Jersey. Currently we retain the first two numbers as the major and
>> minor version of the JAX-RS API Jersey implementations. This is not
>> ideal:
>>
>> 1) Jersey has it's own API that evolves separately it makes it
>> harder to signal major, minor, micro status of Jersey itself;
>>
>> 2) The current versioning scheme does not work very well with maven
>> and OSGi, for example 1.1.4.1; and
>>
>> 3) Then we can consider Markus recommendations for declaring version
>> ranges for dependencies.
>>
>>
>> I have been advised that to avoid confusion with the JAX-RS version
>> we should choose a version of Jersey that is clearly different. Thus
>> i propose that we start the next version at 3.0, even though of
>> course it does not really represent a major change.
>>
>> Paul.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_jersey.dev.java.net
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Releasing-Jersey-1-1-5-on-the-week-of-Jan-18th-tp4272180p4290525.html
Sent from the Jersey mailing list archive at Nabble.com.