Ok, I agree on this point, then you have won another one who support 2.1.2.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 14:43, Sergey Beryozkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I doubt a CXF JAX-RS 0.6 to 0.8 upgrade (which is by default is a breaking > change as the JAXRS spec is a moving target) deserves a 2.2 mark. If it were > CXF JAX-RS 0.8 to 1.0.final then yes, it would probably make sense to > 'mark the occasion' but not because of the potential breaking changes > between 0.8 and 1.0-final. It's not about CXF-specific breaking changes, > it's about users depending on a the jax-rs api which is still under > development - as such they should be prepared to recompile their code > > Cheers, Sergey > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 1:28 PM > > Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2 > > > Actualy I'm not saying to wait for 2.2. I'm rather proposing to label the >> next release with your updated JAXRS work a 2.2, and the next big release >> which is "*quite ways away*" be labeled a 2.3. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 11:33, Sergey Beryozkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> wrote: >> >> While it's all about the good classical versioning scheme, I'm not >>> convinced >>> postponing jax-rs updates up untill 2.2 is a practical idea. >>> 2.2 will probably be released some time in the end of the year and for >>> cxf >>> users who prefer to stick for whatever reasons to its jax-rs >>> implementation >>> is not really acceptable. >>> >>> Note that JAX-RS itself is still in its 0.X version. Surely it's normal >>> to >>> expect that changes from >>> 0,7 to 0.8 and up until 1.0 will cause some breaking changes. >>> >>> As such I'm against postponing it until 2.2 >>> >>> Cheers. Sergey >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:50 PM >>> >>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2 >>> >>> >>> Well, I think it shouldn't be a 2.1.2, the last number should be only >>> >>>> incremented when the release is about fixes and doesn't break things. >>>> >>>> In my point of view the next version should be a 2.2 as it seems to >>>> break >>>> things even if it is only on the jaxrs spec, and then a 2.3 version >>>> could >>>> be >>>> the next one as it seems to bring even more changes. >>>> >>>> While I think it cannot be entirely applied there, I'll tell you >>>> versionning >>>> scheme I had on some past project: >>>> X.Y.Z-R >>>> Where X is mean for breaking changes of the API, Y for additions to the >>>> API, >>>> Z for internal code changes without any API modification, and R for >>>> patches >>>> of the current revision. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 20:08, Johnson, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm +1 on including the changes in 2.1.2. Sergey's comments lead me to >>>> >>>>> believe that the changes will not have an impact on a majority of users >>>>> of the JAX-RS stuff. >>>>> Also, I agree with Benson that people looking for stability are not >>>>> using the JAX-RS stuff. The spec is still a moving target. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Benson Margulies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 11:22 AM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: JAX-RS version and 2.1.2 >>>>> >>>>> I'm +1 on 2.1.2. People who really care about stability are, I >>>>> suspect, >>>>> sticking with 2.0.x. >>>>> >>>>> A compromise would be to announce the intention to include in in 2.1.3, >>>>> and try to really push down the defect count in 2.1.2. Then people who >>>>> want to stay on the old spec could stay on 2.1.2. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > >>>>> > Sergey's commit brings up an interesting topic for discussion: >>>>> > >>>>> > In general, when doing patch releases, I've tried to keep the impact >>>>> > to a bare minimum. I have ported new features to the patch branches, >>>>> but pretty >>>>> > much only if it doesn't affect existing usage. Sergey has done a >>>>> > fantastic job of updating the JAX-RS stuff to the latest 0.8 spec and >>>>> > it would be good to get people to change to using that. However, it >>>>> is a >>>>> > change that could affect existing code. So, should that be part of >>>>> 2.1.2 >>>>> > or wait for 2.2? >>>>> > >>>>> > Pros/cons of adding to 2.1.2: >>>>> > Pro: It's significantly better and has a bunch of bugs fixed >>>>> > Pro: It's closer to the final spec (although the spec is still >>>>> > changing) >>>>> > Pro: Going forward, people will need to migrate to it anyway >>>>> > >>>>> > Con: it does affect existing apps >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > The main con to making it 2.2 only is that 2.2 is quite a ways away. >>>>> > People have been asking for some of this stuff so making them wait >>>>> > that long could be an issue. >>>>> > >>>>> > Anyway, I'd like peoples thoughts on this. I've cc'd the users list >>>>> as >>>>> > well as I'd really like the users opinions as well. If the users >>>>> are >>>>> > willing to take the migration hit, I'm more than OK with putting it >>>>> > for 2.1.2. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > --- >>>>> > Daniel Kulp >>>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> > http://www.dankulp.com/blog >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Brice Dutheil >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------- >>> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland) >>> Registered Number: 171387 >>> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Brice Dutheil >> >> > ---------------------------- > IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland) > Registered Number: 171387 > Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland > -- Bryce
