On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 19:03 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 24 April 2012 18:28, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 18:07 +0100, sebb wrote: > >> On 24 April 2012 17:18, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > 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. > >> > >> We are already making the assumption breaking the API is OK for > >> long-deprecated methods, i.e. that user applications have migrated > >> away from the deprecated methods. > >> > >> So if the methods in question are not likely to be used by 3rd party > >> applications - are they effectively internal ? - we could consider > >> releasing with such breaks in compat, provided that such changes are > >> clearly documented. > >> > > > > It is almost as easy just to deprecate the affected classes. > > Which classes need to be deprecated? > > > What is done is done. > > Not sure I follow what you mean here. >
I already reverted the changes that made 4.2 binary incompatible with 4.1 with exception of removal of deprecated code. > >> > I always thought the return type did not matter for binary method calls. > >> > Obviously I was wrong. > >> > >> I originally thought the same. It was one of the long-time Commons > >> devs who pointed out the problem. > >> > >> It's particularly strange that changing void to non-void matters, but it > >> does. > >> [Perhaps it was easier than making an exception for that particular case] > >> > > > > I am not sure I understand the point of including the return type in the > > method signature since there will always be ambiguity in case there is > > no assignment of the method return to a variable. > > Not possible, see below. > > > int i = obj.dostuff(); // returns int > > double d = obj.dostuff(); // returns double > > That's not possible; obj.dostuff() can only have a single return type (or > void). > > Compiler complains about a "duplicate method" otherwise. > Precisely. So, what is the point of including the return type in the method signature? > > obj.dostuff(); // trouble > > > > That begs the question: what is the point of making things more complex > > than necessary. > > I don't think they did make things more complex. > See above. > > Anyway, as soon as you are happy with the content of the release notes, > > I'll cut another RC and call a vote. > > I've made some fixes to the parent pom, because unfortunately the > buildNumber plugin with javasvn implementation does not work with SVN > 1.7+ clients. > Yes, I am still on version 1.6.x > I assume you have not yet upgraded, because the "Implementation-Build" > headers are OK in the Manifests, so that can be fixed later. > Shall I go ahead and cut a new RC? Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
