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