On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Niall Pemberton <niall.pember...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Paul Benedict wrote: >>> Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-) >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> Another option to consider is splitting the version numbers such as: >>>> >>>> JDBC3 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.3.0 >>>> JDBC4 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.4.0 >>>> >>>> Unless you have expectations to continue supporting JDBC3 in the next >>>> major release, I would seriously suggest a version bump. The typical >>>> use case of major version bumps are incompatibilities. >>>> >>>> PS: You could also try splitting 1.3.0 / 1.3.5, but you would have to >>>> bring in a 4 digit for patch releases -- to avoid 5 1.3.0 patches >>>> incrementing to 1.3.5. >> >> Thanks, Paul. That is an interesting idea. Are you recommending >> that we change the groupId for both versions? If not, we could end >> up with unintentional "latest version" upgrades causing problems. >> The numbering could also be a little misleading. >> >> What negatives do you see in >> >> org.apache.commons:dbcp:1.3 >> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 >> >> We have not decided yet on whether we will maintain jdbc 3 support >> in 2.0, though that is doubtful. >> >> One other thing to keep in mind is that there will almost certainly >> be 1.3.x patch releases to follow for both jdbc3 and jdbc4 >> >> Phil >>>> >>>> Paul >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>>>> Hi Phil, >>>>>> >>>>>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement" or not. >>>>>>>> Basically we say that dbcp 1.3 with JDBC4 will not be backward >>>>>>>> compatible. Then why don't we use the new artifactId for this and allow >>>>>>>> 1.3 with JDBC3 to be a real drop-in replacement? If somebody works with >>>>>>>> ranges, he might get the newer dbcp anyway and wondering about the >>>>>>>> incompatibility later. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore we might better do: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3 >>>>>>>> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 >>>>>>> Thanks Jorg and Grzegorz. Really appreciate the feedback. It is >>>>>>> important that we get this right, minimizing confusion / bad impact >>>>>>> to maven users and making upgrades both safe and as easy as >>>>>>> possible. I was thinking the same way as you, Jörg, on the groupId >>>>>>> change for the jdbc4 version. >>>>>> Note, that I also changed the artifactId "dbcp vs. dbcp4" ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> However, thinking about it, I am not sure if this is necessary and we can >>>>>> really keep the artifactId (your first plan). If somebody uses both >>>>>> artifacts (by transitive deps), his project is broken anyway. We simply >>>>>> have >>>>>> to point out in the website and README, that there are really two >>>>>> different >>>>>> commons-dbcp-1.3.jar files. Or is it too much confusion? >>>>> That worries ma a little bit, more for Ant than Maven users. >>>>> Incompatible jars with the same name in the wild is asking for >>>>> trouble (well, like the old days ;). >>>>> >>>>> Another option, given that we don't have to mess with relocation >>>>> poms, is just to use org.apache.commons:dbcp:1.3 for the jdbc4 version. > > I'm starting to think it would be better to release two versions > - DBCP 1.3 - compatible with JDBC3 and JDK 1.4 > - DBCP 1.4 - compatible with JDBC4 and JDK 1.6 > > Use the same source, just change the version number, target JDK and > comment/uncomment the JDBC_4 markers. > > Wouldn't this be easier in the end? When you're ready to release DBCP > 1.4, then create a branch, run an ant task to comment the JDBC4 stuff, > change the version & JDK target.
P.S. I'm will to put the time in to do at least one of these releases - e.g. if you do DBCP 1.4, then I'll branch and create the equivalent DBCP 1.3 release > Niall > > >>>>> Phil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I see this as killing two birds with >>>>>>> one stone - getting us to the maven standard groupId moving forward >>>>>>> and eliminating or at least making less likely the chance of users >>>>>>> blowing up due to unintentional incompatible upgrades. >>>>>> Yes. And we can avoid the tedious relocation POMs, because it is no >>>>>> relocation. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding Tomcat, Mark or someone else can chime in to confirm, but >>>>>>> my understanding is that tomcat builds and repackages dbcp from >>>>>>> source using Ant and as long as we keep trunk sources as they are, >>>>>>> tomcat will be able to build all versions. >>>>>> - Jörg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
