qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aidan Skinner <aidan.skin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: version number proposal
Date Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:11:21 GMT
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Rafael Schloming <rafaels@redhat.com> wrote:

> Aidan Skinner wrote:

> One view is that JMS is API stable, and other clients are not, therefore JMS
> gets a nice stable version number, and the other components don't. However
> in some ways that's a bit missleading since we're not trying to version the
> JMS API (we don't need to, it already has its own version number), we're
> versioning our *implementation* of JMS, and to a much greater extent the
> maturity of our *implementation* does depend on the other pieces of the
> project, e.g. the broker, and the level of interop with other clients, and
> one version number better reflects *that* reality.

That's a fair point. I hate multiple realities. Damn you Hugh Everett!

>> I'm not sure that similar looking/feeling APIs are really desierable.
>> I'd rather see idiomatic APIs that feel comfortable and natural in the
>> language than shoe-horning JMS into C++.

> That said, my statement in no way implied that we should mindlessly
> translate JMS into the other languages, simply that we need some set of APIs
> that are at a similar level of abstraction such that they can each support
> multiple protocols underneath.

I misinterpreted you in that case, those are both things I can get behind. :)

> As for dotnet, I think that probably deserves its own discussion, since the
> issue there is really more about how we are going to maintain the thing
> going forward, and less about what it's current version number should be.

Yeah, totally different thread that one.

>> I could buy into s/M/0./ for everything (but not s/M/1./). I know some
>> people are opposed to releasing 0.x versions for marketing reasons,
>> but that essentially removes any useful information from the rev.
>
> I agree, and personally I don't think marketing should enter into the
> version number discussion. I think once you let marketing in, you've removed
> all hope for sane and useful version numbers. ;)

Indeed, incrementing releases are the way that goes and often not even
monotonically.

- Aidan

-- 
Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing
http://qpid.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org


Mime
View raw message