Actually I don't care about the number itself (number it as you like) but
more about the schema and the syntax:
* The syntax should follow Maven's a.b.c-d pattern to make Maven work
correctly.
* The number should be used the way they are intended: Major, Minor, Bugfix,
Build.
Following the second rule, I also think that the number itself shall not
change until there is a real change. So if you like to do a 1.1.5, do that.
If there are substantial changes, a 2.0 would be ok. But I don't see a need
for 3.0. Jersey is Jersey, and JAX-RS is JAX-RS. I don't see that it will
confuse anybody more than changing the number without a need. On the other
hand, I have no problem if you like to name it even 127.0.0.-1 ;-)
Regards
Markus
From: Sudhakar Kumar [mailto:ksudhakar_at_live.com]
Sent: Freitag, 8. Januar 2010 14:27
To: users_at_jersey.dev.java.net
Subject: RE: [Jersey] Releasing Jersey 1.1.5 on the week of Jan 18th
As a developer, I don't see the cause for confusion between the versions of
Jersey and JAX-RS. Introducing 2.0 or 3.0 when there is no reason to do so
is a permanent confusion in my opinion.
Thoughts from the community?
_____
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:04:04 +0100
From: Paul.Sandoz_at_Sun.COM
To: users_at_jersey.dev.java.net
Subject: Re: [Jersey] Releasing Jersey 1.1.5 on the week of Jan 18th
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
_____
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
<
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390709/direct/01/> now.