Vyacheslav, It looks like an overcomplication to me. Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but not naming?
Denis чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradu...@gmail.com>: > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations. > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being used > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure. > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same > full class name, but different classes versions for example in > different classloaders. > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <dmekhani...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature. > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different implementation of a > > service, you can assign a different name to it. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Denis > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur < > daradu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters! > > > > > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1]. > > > > > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to implement this > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration of IEP-17 > > > > because of change messages formats. > > > > > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are able to host > > > > services with the same name, but with different class/version, we > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s lifecycle instead > > > > of service’s name. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user going to have > to > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally? > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > -- > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >
