The package renaming would most likely break some backwards compatibility between 1.0 and 2.0. I'd prefer to see the packages get renamed before 1.0 so we can change the packages of Message classes, etc in the same release that introduces the new JGroups.
The packages are currently a mess of com.gemstone.*, com.vmware.*, joptsimple.*, org.json.* (would we change all four or just the gemstone/vmware packages?). I'm probably biting off more than I should, but I'd be willing head up the package renaming effort. I think maintaining backwards compatibility (rolling upgrades included) for releases following Geode 1.0 is a definite requirement. I'd like to see the other discussion thread about defining the Geode protocol(s) converge with this thread. Officially defining the communication protocols (cluster, client/server, etc) would ideally happen in conjunction with 1.0 so that it's concrete and less ambiguous for 2.0 and later releases. -Kirk On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > We've been releasing milestones of 1.0, but at some point we actually have > to release a real geode 1.0 :) > > What is keeping us from releasing geode 1.0 at this point? Just the issues > currently marked with Fix Version M3? I think we should nail down the scope > of 1.0 and track our progress to the 1.0 release. > > From the apache process perspective, I don't think 1.0 is any different > from the milestone releases we've done so far. The only difference with 1.0 > is what it means to the geode community. > > Gemfire maintained backwards compatibility with previous releases for > persistent files, client/server, WAN, and P2P messaging. I think once we > release 1.0 we should provide that same guarantee that the next geode > release will be backwards compatible with 1.0. > > We do still have the package renaming (GEODE-37) on the horizon. My > suggestion is that in the interests of getting 1.0 out the door, at this > point we should just release geode 1.0 with the old packages and rename > packages in geode 2.0. > > Thoughts? > > -Dan >
