Hi Christian

On a high level I disagree and would suggest to continue releasing individual 
bundles.

Plus: don’t blindly update dependency versions just because there is a new 
release.

I think the „plus“ is actually key here: With OSGi applications are bound late 
at the time of deployment using the wiring „instructions“ such as 
Import-Package and Export-Package. This is the essential dependency management 
for bundles.

The build time dependencies really are just that: build time. So unless the 
build (the actual code, not necessairily the tests) don’t need any newly 
released features, it is actually better to *not* update the dependencies. 
Because this allows to update individual bundles more independently at 
deployment time.

If there are requirements, then updating makes sense. But other than bundles 
implementing new API or bundles using new API, I fail to see any need for such 
updates.

There is another one: In OSGi „projects“ bundles generally evolve 
independently. Releasing them in lock-step might/will create new versions of 
bundles which have not actually changed. What does the new version then purvey 
? Nothing, at best it would be confusing.

Just my $.02

Regards
Felix


> Am 03.01.2017 um 12:34 schrieb Christian Schneider <[email protected]>:
> 
> Currently the blueprint bundles are released individually. I think this 
> creates a lot of overhead as there are quite many bundles and for each 
> release you have to manually update the dependencies in several places. I am 
> also sure that we quite regularly forgot to update dependencies. For example 
> the blueprint-repository project was not updated for any recent releases.
> 
> So I propose we change the blueprint subproject to always release all bundles 
> and keep the bundle versions aligned. We should still be able to make the 
> project very stable by using package versions for the APIs.
> 
> A side effect would be that we could have blueprint karaf features and an OBR 
> repository for other non karaf deployments in the aries blueprint code and 
> the maintenance would be quite low.
> 
> So what do you think?
> 
> Christian
> 
> -- 
> Christian Schneider
> http://www.liquid-reality.de
> 
> Open Source Architect
> http://www.talend.com
> 

Reply via email to