If it is ok then I'll take OLINGO-192 and I will do it on master branch. Problem is that re-factoring usually makes merge of feature branches difficult. So I recommend to merge feature branches ASAP or count with difficulties.
I'll start with that task begin of next week. Please reply if this should wait. Ok? --Stephan On 07.03.14 10:37, "Challen He" <chall...@microsoft.com> wrote: >HI Francesco, using general name for latest version should bring some >benefits (also consistent with ' org.apache.olingo' - no version number), >I have created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OLINGO-191 , let's >have more discussion there as needed. > >Also created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OLINGO-192 for >removing odata4 from package name, would server side developer pick it up? > >Thanks,-Challen > >-----Original Message----- >From: Francesco Chicchiriccò [mailto:ilgro...@apache.org] >Sent: 2014年3月7日 16:23 >To: dev@olingo.incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: [OLINGO-169] Work in progress > >On 07/03/2014 09:19, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote: >> On 07/03/2014 09:13, Challen He wrote: >>> So will need 2 JIRA >>> >>> 1. org.apache.olingo.odata4 --> org.apache.olingo. >> +1 (are we talking about Maven artifacts' groupId and package names, >> +right?) >> >>> 2. versioning namespaces. >>> For example: >>> org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.api.edm >>> org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.api.edm.v3 >>> org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.api.edm.v4 >>> ==> >>> org.apache.olingo.client.api.edm.shared >>> org.apache.olingo.client.api.edm.v3 - for v3 >>> org.apache.olingo.client.api.edm - for v4 >> As previously said, I don't think this is correct, I would leave >> package names as they currently are. > >Of course, considering the root package renaming above, hence: > >org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.api.edm >org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.api.edm.v3 >org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.api.edm.v4 >==> >org.apache.olingo.client.api.edm >org.apache.olingo.client.api.edm.v3 >org.apache.olingo.client.api.edm.v4 > >Anyway, I am +-0 for this change, hence if others are favorable, no >problems. > >Regards. > >>> I am not sure who should create them, the components' current owner? >>> >>> Thanks,-Challen >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Klevenz, Stephan [mailto:stephan.klev...@sap.com] >>> Sent: 2014年3月5日 23:12 >>> To: dev@olingo.incubator.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: [OLINGO-169] Work in progress >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> (if no one complains then I suggest to open a Jira issue for a >>> re-factoring task) >>> >>> On 05.03.14 15:32, "Challen He" <chall...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 2. (a) I would vote for org.apache.olingo, removing odata4, (b) I >>>> would suggest also remove v4 from >>>>'org.apache.olingo.odata4.client.api.edm.v4' >>>> There is not much worry about protocol change versus our client >>>> change, but protocol change versus user code change. If we require >>>> user code to import 'v4', then when we add 'v5', user code still >>>> work without changing 'v4'->'v5', their possible oversight may make >>>>our 'v5' >>>> never take effect, sounds error-prone. >>>> >> > > >-- >Francesco Chicchiriccò > >Tirasa - Open Source Excellence >http://www.tirasa.net/ > >Involved at The Apache Software Foundation: >member, Syncope PMC chair, Cocoon PMC, Olingo PPMC >http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/ >
