mattwelke commented on issue #34:
URL: 
https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-runtime-dotnet/issues/34#issuecomment-819664825


   @shawnallen85 Ah ok. I agree it makes sense to wait to deprecate one version 
of a runtime until you release another version of the runtime.
   
   One thing about updating Newtonsoft.Json though... Right now, because the 
runtime depends on version 12.0.2 in particular, the instructions for making an 
action that uses the runtime say that the user must add a dependency to version 
12.0.2 in particular of Newtonsoft.Json to their action project. Examples:
   
   - 
https://github.com/apache/openwhisk-runtime-dotnet/blob/master/core/dotnet3.1/QUICKSTART.md
   - https://cloud.ibm.com/docs/openwhisk?topic=openwhisk-prep#prep_dotnet (a 
particular provider of OpenWhisk as a service)
   
   Doesn't this mean that for OpenWhisk providers, when they update their 
version of the 3.1 runtime, they would want their users to be able to continue 
deploying actions made for previous versions of the 3.1 runtime without having 
to make changes (that runtime version updates are non-breaking)? If so, we 
would need to stick to version 12.0.2 of Newtonsoft.Json.
   
   I think the change that @kamyker made to use the built in System.Text.json 
instead improves this situation, because there's no 3rd party library for the 
runtime and actions to need to be in sync with. The earliest version of .NET 
that System.Text.Json was available in was 3.1 (then known as .NET Core) 
(https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/serialization/system-text-json-migrate-from-newtonsoft-how-to?pivots=dotnet-5-0),
 but it wasn't used here, so if my understanding of our semver problem is true, 
then we're stuck with Newtonsoft.Json for the 3.1 runtime, but we could look 
into using it for the next runtime (6.0 as you state).


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


Reply via email to