I still disagree. As I mentioned in the call, most interfaces will be provider type (implemented by service provider). If we assume them all to be consumer type (listener pattern), we will bump the major version unnecessarily when a new method is added. Our guess will be wrong 99% or even more. I would like to hear what majority people think.
Regards Emily On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM, BJ Hargrave <[email protected]> wrote: > > The @ConsumerType annoation will be in future spec. Adding a method > > in an interface is a major version change if the interface has the > > annoation of @ConsumerType while it will be a minor change if the > > interface has the annoation of @ProviderType. > > > > In reality, most interfaces will fall into the category of > > ProviderType while only minority interfaces need consumer to implement. > > I think this is a statement of opinion and I don't think there is any data > to confirm this one way or the other. In the absence of being marked > @ConsumerType or @ProviderType, tooling must assume the safest case which > is to assume the type is @ConsumerType. This results in the most > conservative versioning. I think the Aries versioning tool is wrong here by > assuming @ProviderType. > -- > > *BJ Hargrave* > Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM > OSGi Fellow and CTO of the *OSGi Alliance* <http://www.osgi.org/>* > **[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > office: +1 386 848 1781 > mobile: +1 386 848 3788 > > > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > [email protected] > https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev > -- Thanks Emily ================= Emily Jiang [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
