It's a point of view thing, I think. I would read that as 1.0 of that implementation regardless of the JFreeChart version (which needs to be documented as well) or Pivot version. That is, somewhere it should say:
http://pivot.googlecode.com/files/pivot-charts.jfree_1.0.jar is a charts implementation for Pivot v1.1 and depends on JFreeChart v1.whatever Having its own version and documenting the other versions removes all ambiguity, IMHO. Cheers, Chris 2009/4/2 Greg Brown <[email protected]> > I think the reverse might actually be true. Calling it 1.0 implies that it > will be compatible with Pivot 1.0, which it is not. > > Maybe it would be better to align the version number with the JFreeChart > version, and simply document the Pivot 1.1 dependency. > > On Thursday, April 02, 2009, at 04:43AM, "Christopher Brind" < > [email protected]> wrote: > >I thought of that initially, but no ... the version of this jar can be > >independent of the version of Pivot. That is, it is version 1.0 of an > >implementation of chart support using JFreeChart. > > > >Otherwise it implies that this jar will be incompatible with future > versions > >of Pivot, which it might not be, and also means that a new version of this > >jar has to be created for each future version of Pivot, which is probably > >unnecessary. As long as we reference the correct version, that's what > >matters, IMHO. > > > >Cheers, > >Chris > > > > > >2009/4/2 Sandro Martini <[email protected]> > > > >> Hi to all, > >> > >> > Since the JFreeChart implementation is separate to the main release, I > >> think > >> > it should have a version number in its name. e.g. > >> > http://pivot.googlecode.com/files/pivot-charts.jfree_1.0.jar > >> Ok, but what do you think on using the same version number of the > >> related pivot version (in this case pivot-charts.jfree-1.1.jar), to > >> avoid confusion ? > >> > >> Bye, > >> Sandro > >> > > >
