[jsr330-eg] Maven users

[Bob Lee]

I requested that javax.inject be added to Maven's central repository: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-2628

Thanks,

Bob

[Bob Lee]

And, thanks to EG member Jason van Zyl, it's already in. Thanks, Jason!

Bob

[Boris Bokowski]

Bob,

I noticed that the pom.xml specifies a version number, "1", for
javax.inject. How do you plan to change that number for updated
versions of the code? Is there any versioning scheme that you are
following (e.g., API changes vs. non-API changes)?

Thanks,
Boris

[Bob Lee]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Boris Bokowski <boko...@gmail.com> wrote:

I noticed that the pom.xml specifies a version number, "1", for
javax.inject.  How do you plan to change that number for updated
versions of the code?  Is there any versioning scheme that you are
following (e.g., API changes vs. non-API changes)?

It depends on the change. The next version might be "1.1", or it might be "2". Right now, I have no plans to change the annotations, so it's difficult to say.

Bob

[Boris Bokowski]

"It depends" is not exactly what I was looking for. Let me try again :-)

As a consumer of javax.inject I am interested to know whether the API
will always be evolved in a compatible way (binary and contract
compatible at least).

If the answer is "there might be breaking changes", then I am
interested to know if I'll be able to tell when this happens from the
version number.

To a lesser extent, but still interesting, is the question what you
would put next to an @since tag for any additions to the API. Or is
the delivery vehicle for this the JSE, and @since tags like "1.7" or
"1.8" would be added to the types when (if?) they are included in the
JSE libraries?

Boris

[Bob Lee]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Boris Bokowski <boko...@gmail.com> wrote:

As a consumer of javax.inject I am interested to know whether the API

will always be evolved in a compatible way (binary and contract
compatible at least).

We will never make incompatible changes.

 

To a lesser extent, but still interesting, is the question what you

would put next to an @since tag for any additions to the API. Or is
the delivery vehicle for this the JSE, and @since tags like "1.7" or
"1.8" would be added to the types when (if?) they are included in the
JSE libraries?

If this is adopted by JSE, we will put @since 1.7 (or whatever) on the current types.

Bob 

[Werner Keil]

Regarding XML to configure DI or dependency management, I guess Jason
might also have some ideas.
Have you discussed these aspects of "Step 2" regarding external
configuration?

Werner

[Werner Keil]

From the experience in other JSRs like 275 (we use Maven at Kenai or
java.net for a while now) I don't think "2" would be a good idea.
I'm sure, the PMO at JCP also has some ideas on that, but 2 or even
1.1 might seem better for a Maintainance release.

And unless you stick to 2 digit version numbers only, 1.0.x might be
better. Otherwise at least 1.x.

Werner

[Werner Keil]

I saw the file following various Maven repositories last night.

The version a simple "1" is a bit unusual for Maven artifacts, but I
guess it should work.

Naming sounds much like Eclipse or OSGi style bundles.

Boris mentioned, he'd put it on Eclipse Orbit, so I assume at least
there it must be a real OSGi Bundle, too.
(which would also go rather well with the OSGi initiatives and
products of another EG member and co Spec Lead btw ;-)

Werner