Hi, thanks a lot for feedback.
I agree with the names without the library part. So as example we then get: "Olingo OData Client for Java 4.0.0-beta-01” and "Olingo OData Server for Java 4.0.0-beta-01”. Based on this I will start with the preparation for the RC01 which then results in: "Olingo OData Client for Java 4.0.0-beta-01-RC01” and "Olingo OData Server for Java 4.0.0-beta-01-RC01”. I think till the end of the week the RC01 could be available (on the homepage and in the maven repo) for a release vote. Kind regards, Michael On 09.09.2014, at 18:22, Ramesh Reddy <rare...@redhat.com> wrote: > +1 for not having "Library" in the name, that seems verbose otherwise. Also, > are you guys planning on having them in maven repo? > +1 for separate client and server distributions, as I suspect there is going > to be lot of client users compare to server api consumers. > > Ramesh.. > > ----- Original Message ----- >> Hi Michael, >> >> Thank you for organizing this. One proposal is to not having "-Library" in >> the artifact names. Thus, they will be "Olingo OData Client for Java >> 4.0.0-beta-01" and "Olingo OData Server for Java 4.0.0-beta-01". Some >> thoughts with this proposal: >> 1. It has name consistency with the Olingo JavaScript client >> 2. Some existing OData libraries don't have "library" in their names (e.g. >> OData Client for .NET: >> https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.OData.Client/) >> >> Best, >> Yi >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bolz, Michael [mailto:michael.b...@sap.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 2:09 PM >> To: dev@olingo.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Prepare Release "Olingo OData Library for Java 4.0.0-beta-01”? >> >> Hi Challen, >> >> thanks for offer of support. >> >> I will wait till tomorrow for other opinions and then start with the release >> preparations. >> Another thought during the weekend was to split the naming into "Olingo OData >> Client-Library for Java 4.0.0-beta-01” and "Olingo OData Server-Library for >> Java 4.0.0-beta-01”. >> So it is probably more clear which distribution someone want to use. >> On the other side it is a very long name for an artifact ;o) >> >> @All: Some opinions about this? >> >> Kind regards, >> Michael >> >> >> On 09.09.2014, at 05:55, Challen He <chall...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> +1 for java client naming & release. >>> I will be happy to work with you on the logistics as needed. >>> >>> >>> Thanks,-Challen >>> >>> From: Bolz, Michael [mailto:michael.b...@sap.com] >>> Sent: 2014年9月5日 21:18 >>> To: dev@olingo.apache.org >>> Subject: Prepare Release "Olingo OData Library for Java 4.0.0-beta-01”? >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> with the coming release of the "Olingo OData Client for Java Script >>> 4.0.0-beta-01” we should also prepare the according Java release. >>> >>> A JIRA Issue was already created by Stephan and currently there are 9 open >>> issues related to version "4.0.0-beta-01”, but no bug and 5 issues just >>> related to release preparations and 2 related to Javascript (see: >>> http://s.apache.org/olingo-4). >>> So we should check the remaining two issues (OLINGO-347 and OLINGO-213) and >>> either fix/close or postpone them to the next release. >>> Additionally we should think about a "code freeze" on the master till the >>> release is done. >>> Further we should think about renaming the Java library according to the >>> last discussion in Javascript context to "Olingo OData Library for Java >>> 4.0.0-beta-01”. >>> WDYT, should we do a) a rename and b) already with the next release? IMHO >>> we should do both ;o) >>> >>> Nevertheless I hope we can start till mid of next week with the release >>> preparation to get a RC01 at the end of next week. >>> >>> Again, WDYT about creation of a release? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Michael >> >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
