On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 16:59 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 24 April 2012 16:03, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 15:18 +0100, sebb wrote: > >> On 24 April 2012 12:13, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 02:48 +0100, sebb wrote: > >> >> On 23 April 2012 14:33, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > On 21 April 2012 12:21, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Core 4.2. > >> >> >> The > >> >> >> vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes from > >> >> >> HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least > >> >> >> three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Packages: > >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~olegk/httpcore-4.2-RC1/ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Release notes: > >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~olegk/httpcore-4.2-RC1/RELEASE_NOTES.txt > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Maven artefacts: > >> >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-078/org/apache/httpcomponents/ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> SVN tag: > >> >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpcore/tags/4.2-RC1/ > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >> Vote: HttpComponents Core 4.2 release > >> >> >> [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents Core 4.2. > >> >> > >> >> Sorry, I'm changing my vote: > >> >> > >> >> >> [X] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason). > >> >> > >> >> I've just noticed that Clirr reports several compatibility issues > >> >> against 4.1. > >> >> > >> >> I've not investigated in any detail, but it looks as though at least > >> >> some of these are binary compatibility issues, and they appear to be > >> >> in public APIs. > >> >> > >> >> It may be that these are not actually a problem, but I think they need > >> >> to be investigated further. > >> >> If the errors are harmless - or perhaps only affect source builds - it > >> >> would be helpful to update the site (and ideally release notes) > >> >> accordingly. > >> >> > >> >> [No need to cancel the vote just yet, in case I'm wrong.] > >> >> > >> >> BTW, we recently added test jars to the Commons Maven output. > >> >> This should make it easier to run old tests against new releases. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Sebastian > >> > > >> > The reported differences in public APIs reported by Clirr are due to two > >> > things (1) upgrade from Java 1.3 to Java 1.5 (2) removal of code > >> > deprecated between 4.0-beta1 and 4.0 (that is, before 4.0 GA, more than > >> > two years ago) > >> > > >> > We had a discussion about pros and cons of upgrading to Java 1.5 and if > >> > I remember it correctly you were in favor of that idea [1]. The changes > >> > have also been announced early enough (several releases in advance) [2]. > >> > They do make 4.1 and 4.2 not fully binary compatible but I seriously > >> > doubt there will be a single user affected by incompatibility. > >> > > >> > I hope you will change your mind. > >> > >> I've been looking further at the changes. > >> The changes to NIO are all removals of deprecated methods, so not a > >> problem (or at least, not our problem). > >> > >> The removed methods in HttpCore are also deprecated methods, so not a > >> problem. > >> > > > > Not only were they deprecated, they are deprecated two release cycles > > back (before 4.0 official release). > > > >> Not sure why the value definitions of HTTP.DEFAULT_CONTENT_CHARSET and > >> DEFAULT_PROTOCOL_CHARSET were changed. > >> Given that they are now deprecated, I would have thought the values > >> could have been left untouched. > > > > I think the case changed (by mistake). I'll fix it right away. > > > >> However AFAICT that does not affect compatibility. > >> > >> [BTW, in future we ought to document in which release items are deprecated] > >> > >> That just leaves the changed method signatures, which are due to > >> adding generics to Iterator in o.a.h.message.Basic*Iterator and to > >> AbstractMessageParser. > >> In the case of the MessageParser subclasses, these were also changed > >> to use more specific subclasses: > >> HttpRequest and HttpResponse instead of their common super-interface > >> HttpMessage > >> > >> It's not obvious to me if these methods are likely to be called by 3rd > >> party code or whether they are only likely to be used internally. > >> > > > > You see, in any sane use case scenarios, especially as far as iterators > > are concerned, the type returned from those methods would always be cast > > to the expected subtype. In almost all cases regardless of how those > > methods are being used the changes will have no effect at the runtime > > behavior. > > The problem is that the return type of a method is part of the signature. > Java won't find the method at runtime if the signature changes between > compilation and run-time. > > This generally does not affect source compatibility, but it does > affect binary compat. > > We had this exact problem in Commons IO > We wanted to change a method return from void to something else; > however testing against pre-existing binaries showed that this broke > binary compat. >
All right. I'll revert those changes. I always thought the return type did not matter for binary method calls. Obviously I was wrong. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
