First of all,
thanks a lot to everyone who contributed to the Paho 1.1
release, awesome work!
I don’t know
if this was already addressed, but the versioning of the single
parts of Paho is very confusing - at least for me. From the
release notes for the Paho 1.1 release from [1]:
Updated
versions of the existing client libraries:
1)
Roger Light’s Python MQTT client, version 1.1
2)
The full fat Posix/Windows/MacOS C client, updated to version
1.0.3
3)
The Java MQTT client, updated to version 1.0.2
4)
The _javascript_ MQTT client, updated to version 1.0.1
I know it’s
pretty tough to find a consistent version numbering for all
libraries, especially since they can have different development
speeds. From my point of view and from the feedback I had from
other people, it’s extremely confusing for any end-user who is
not interested in all details and sub-libraries of Paho, that
the Paho Release 1.1 contains Java Paho 1.0.2. In fact, this is
not really obvious from the current Paho web site which version
to use.
I have two
possible competing suggestions for version numbering and the
release-“train”:
1. Name the
Paho Release “Train”, not with numbers but with names. That
would mean Paho does not use any version numbering for scheduled
releases but let’s say it’s named "Q1/2015 release” or “Mars
release" or even give some funny names like the Linux kernel
guys do. But don’t use version numbers which do not match with
the sub-libraries in the umbrella release. In this case, each
library can have it’s own version numbering. It’s very important
to have a table available with all concrete version numbers on
the website and in the release notes, otherwise it’s still too
hard for people figuring out the right versions.
2. The Paho
umbrella releases are numbered (like 1.1). In this case, all
client libraries *must* use the exact same numbering (at least
MAJOR and MINOR version numbers), so e.g. the _javascript_ and the
Java library both have 1.1.0. After the initial Paho-“train"
release, of course any sub-library can update bugfix versions
accordingly if bugfix releases are done outside the release
train.
One general
suggestions: Please add the current version numbering for each
library to the Paho main page. It’s not always obvious what the
current version of each library is.
Does any of
these suggestions make sense to you? From my point of view any
of these suggestions would greatly help increase usability and
reduce confusion for users. Also, this may help to reduce the
fragmentation of the Paho libraries (there are e.g. many 0.4.0
Paho users out there who don’t even know they have a very
outdated version).
Hope I didn’t
come too late for this discussion - if it was already discussed
some other time, I apologize for bringing it back on the table.
This is a very serious and important usability issue for end
users in my opinion, though.
Best regards,
Dominik
_______________________________________________
paho-dev mailing list
paho-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/paho-dev