On 17 January 2017 at 11:37, Adel Boutros <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > > If I understand correctly, you are in a way mapping the JMS release cycle > to the AMQP support and the JMS specs. So 0.x is still used because support > form AQM 1.0 is not done yet and when it will be, you will release JMS > client 1.0. > > That not any sort of official policy, more my view of one reason we might be considering to hold off declaring a version 1.0. > > However, in my humble opinion, your API is public and very widely used. My > question was founded on the semantic versioning as defined here ( > http://semver.org/). > > This is why I think 1.0.0 should be already the case for JMS Client. > > I think there are effectively two "public APIs" in place here, the one between the application and the library - which is essentially JMS 2.0, and so can never really change unless JMS does... and the interface between the client and the AMQP service. If that interface between the library and the AMQP service changes in a way that makes things incompatible, then it would mean that the client would not work against services which were compliant with the specification. Since the mapping specification is still evolving I think it is reasonable that we have an 0.x version at the moment... however I would expect this to rapidly firm up. I'll defer to Robbie/Tim who are more closely involved in the client work to give their views on what they believe are the necessary conditions for the client to hit a 1.0 release. I would definitely like to get us to commit to a 1.0 release this year - and preferably fairly early in the year - but the folks actually working on this will need to be the ones making the call here. -- Rob > In case you have major work which will break the current API, then why not > simply release a 2.0.0? > > > Regards, > > Adel > > ________________________________ > From: Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 11:10:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: versioning > > On 17 January 2017 at 09:49, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16/01/17 20:38, Timothy Bish wrote: > >> > >> There are no plans for a 1.0.0 release at this time. > > > > > > Qpid has historically been reluctant to go to a 1.0 for different > reasons. > > One was the desire to wait for AMQP 1.0 (which took a long time to come, > but > > has now been an ISO standard form a long time). Another was in case the > API > > needed to change. For JMS this wouldn't really be an issue I wouldn't > think. > > > > So while I have no objection to the current version number, I think we > > should not be afraid to move to a 1.0 or beyond. It doesn't mean there > are > > no more bugs, but it does I think more accurately indicate the level of > > completeness and robustness. > > > > I now see Rob has just beaten me to saying essentially the same thing, > but since I already typed it... > > I think Tim simply meant we have not recently thought on when we might > do so, i.e. there are no plans, not that we never intend to or couldnt > decide to do so tomorrow if we wanted. > > We have just changed the API version, and the mapping of certain > behaviours has not yet been finalised, so there are reasons I don't > actually think its entirely out of place for it to still be at 0.X so > far. > > Robbie > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
