I agree. The artificial bump to 3.0 would appear just as confusing. And
I think those developers who care, can understand to distinguish Jersey
from JAX-RS. In many ways this is similar to how the Mono .NET
implementation does it (i.e. Mono 3.0 implements .NET 3.5).
/Casper
Markus Karg wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>