[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [wtp-dev] Action required for adopters of org.eclipse.wst.wsdl for WTP 3.1 M5

> ... if the new version is still backwards compatible with the old version
> ... I would go as far to set the upper bound to 2.0 in both cases, but I'm more liberal that way.

I think one hard part to balance, in this area, is that the third party jars (and hence the tools that build on them)
don't follow the exact same conventions as we do in Eclipse/OSGi land, or at least not as rigorously.
And that's what has led to this conservative version ranges for cases like this.
But, I'm more conservative that way. :)


Inactive hide details for David Carver ---01/14/2009 02:34:02 PM---Amy Wu wrote: >David Carver ---01/14/2009 02:34:02 PM---Amy Wu wrote: >


From:

David Carver <dcarver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

"General discussion of project-wide or architectural issues." <wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

01/14/2009 02:34 PM

Subject:

Re: [wtp-dev] Action required for adopters of org.eclipse.wst.wsdl for WTP 3.1 M5

Sent by:

wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Amy Wu wrote:
>
> Sure, people can go ahead and widen their ranges now to prevent build
> breakage.  But I would advise soon after the wsdl changes are released
> (I'll notify the mailing list when this happens), the lower bound
> tightens up again.  If by some fluke, someone has only
> org.eclipse.wst.wsdl 1.2.0 & javax.wsdl 1.4.1, they may run into errors.
I don't necessarily see that as an issue, if the new version is still
backwards compatible with the old version, and they are only using API's
that existing in 1.2 and 1.4.1, those same APIs should exist in the new
versions as well, otherwise it's a major version change.   I would go as
far to set the upper bound to 2.0 in both cases, but I'm more liberal
that way.

Dave

_______________________________________________
wtp-dev mailing list
wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/wtp-dev


GIF image

GIF image