I just checked, the only new entry points in rexx.dll are internal use only ones required by different interpreter components. There are no new "official" APIs introduced. The version can reasonable left at the 4 level.
Rick On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 10:31 AM Rick McGuire <object.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > I guess the real problem is that we are inappropriately tying the uses of > the library version to the release version. The purpose here is to allow > linking to a version that contains the entry points required by your > program. The links to the older versions are created because the new > version is upward compatible to the old version, so, for example, a version > 5 library will work with programs linked to version 4 of the same library. > A new release of the interpreter does not warrant automatically bumping the > library version, unless the library also contains new entry points that > implement new APIs. I had a similar problem with the context APIs. The API > version is not tied to the interpreter release number, but is only > incremented when a new API is added to a given context vector. The > different context APIs (thread, method, routine, etc.) each carries its own > version identifier. > > So what is needed here is an API level identifier. The past version was > not necessarily broken, because I'm not sure any new entry points were > introduced between 4.0 and 4.2. I'd have to go double check, but I'm not > sure that any new ones are being introduced in 5.0.0, which would argue > that it should be left a the 4 level. > > Rick > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:48 AM Rony G. Flatscher <rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.at> > wrote: > >> On 26.07.2020 14:11, Rick McGuire wrote: >> > The only reservation I have is that new APIs can get introduced in >> minor releases as well as major >> > releases. As such, wouldn't it be better if "5.0" were used? A library >> for a 5.1 release might >> > contain APIs that a 5.0 release does not. The old convention was >> probably an error. >> >> It seems that you foresee situations with ooRexx that warrant at least >> ORX_MINOR to be used, even >> worse, you view the old convention to be in error! >> >> In that case it would not make sense to simplify the so version number >> for ooRexx 5.0 to only use >> ORX_MAJOR then and the question is whether it makes sense to change the >> current setting of >> ORX_VERSION at all then! >> :) >> >> ---rony >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Oorexx-devel mailing list >> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel >> >
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
