Use-cases for version ranges?

[Nicolas Lalevée]

Le 20 nov. 2011 à 20:18, Brian Pontarelli a écrit :

> One other way I look at version ranges is that it is like guessing the future. If I publish something that contains a version range with versions that haven't been released yet, I'm essentially guessing that another developer will maintain compatibility according to my version range.
> 
> For example, if I specify this:
> 
> log4j (1.0, 2.0]
> 
> I'm essentially just guessing that the Log4j team will be cool and maintain compatibility from the current version of 1.2.16 all the way through 2.0. This really isn't my job or a good idea in my opinion.

Since there is no declared version scheme, and further more no semantic on each segment, I wouldn't use version range either.

But then again, if you make the distinction between the API and the implementation, it is safe to use version range, at least on the API level. In the OSGi world, you can have different version between the one declared on the package and the one declared on the bundle. Whereas the log4j team would bump their version of their bundle the way they want, a strong semantic on the version on the packages (the API) would force them to correctly bump it so they will not annoy any "range"-dependent project with incompatible version. The bundle (implementation) version would be the "marketing" version and the package (API) version would strongly state the backward compatibility.

OSGi has a quite limited version scheme, which I think is very good with strong semantic on the package. But on the bundle I think it is a mistake, there's some release cycle which doesn't fit into a 3 segments version scheme.

Nicolas

> 
> -bp
> 
> On Nov 18, 2011, at 11:59 PM, Neil Bartlett wrote:
> 
>> Gili,
>> 
>> I didn't say anything about guarantees, and in this industry I have
>> never heard of anybody providing a guarantees about the performance of
>> their software, especially in the presence of external dependencies.
>> 
>> Version ranges are a means of communicating expectations, and we
>> provide both a lower and an upper bound because this is useful
>> information. I expect my module will work with 1.2.14, and I expect it
>> will not work with 2.0. If I were a provider of the API rather than a
>> consumer then I would have a much narrower expectation,  e.g.
>> [1.2,1.3), and this would also be useful information to convey.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Neil
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:27 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>> Neil,
>>> 
>>>   I guess I don't understand why Jigsaw should work differently from Maven
>>> on this point. I am expecting developers to specify specific versions that
>>> they tested (point versions, not ranges) and end-users may override these
>>> "recommendations" as they see fit.
>>> 
>>>   Where you see version range [1.2.14, 2.0) as a way of communicating "the
>>> developer guarantees 1.2.14 but you may use newer versions up to 2.0 at your
>>> own risk" I'd expect the developer to simply specify 1.2.14 and there should
>>> be no limit on what version end-users may use if they so wish.
>>> 
>>> Gili
>>> 
>>> On 18/11/2011 2:23 AM, Neil Bartlett wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I noticed that I failed to address your point about Maven using point
>>>> versions.
>>>> 
>>>> Maven is a build tool. At build time we need to compile against a
>>>> single specific version so that we have repeatable builds. In general
>>>> we should build each module against the lowest version of the library
>>>> that it can possibly use, and there are no major negative consequences
>>>> of having several versions of a library at build time (except that
>>>> Maven has to download a lot!). At runtime however we need to have the
>>>> flexibility to substitute a single compatible version.
>>>> 
>>>> Neil
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Neil Bartlett<njbartlett at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Suppose as the developer of module A, I declare a dependency on log4j,
>>>>> exactly version 1.0.0 because I have not tested against log4j 1.0.1,
>>>>> 1.0.2, 1.3, 999.999 etc. I effectively prevent my module *ever* being
>>>>> used with log4j version 1.0.1 even if this combinations is later
>>>>> tested and proven to work by somebody else. In other words, testing is
>>>>> important but it doesn't necessarily have to always be done by the
>>>>> original developer of each module.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On the other hand let's say I state my dependency using the following
>>>>> range: [1.2.14, 2.0). This is OSGi syntax and I believe Jigsaw is
>>>>> following it, and it simply means I accept version 1.2.14 up to but
>>>>> not including 2.0. Anybody can see that I compiled and tested against
>>>>> 1.2.14, but has the option of using 1.2.15, 1.2.16, 1.3, 1.9 etc. It
>>>>> does not mean that I *guarantee* my module will work with log4j 1.3
>>>>> because that obviously depends on whether the log4j authors accept and
>>>>> follow the common semantics of indicating backwards-incompatible
>>>>> changes with a bump to the first version segment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The consequence of trying to lock down imports to a narrow range or
>>>>> even a point version is that assembling an application becomes very
>>>>> difficult, and we are forced to deploy many versions of common
>>>>> libraries concurrently. This is non-optimal, though we can handle it
>>>>> to some degree via per-module classloaders as in OSGi.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Neil
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:52 PM, cowwoc<cowwoc at bbs.darktech.org>  wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can someone please explain why modules need to be able to specify
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> ranges for dependencies? I believe OSGI allows the specification of
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> ranges while Maven allows the specification of individual versions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The only thing that comes to mind is when module C depends on A and B, A
>>>>>> depends on log4j 1.0, and B depends on log4j 1.1. What does C do? Is
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> the main use-case for version ranges?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> By the sound of it, this is a trust model where developers are told that
>>>>>> log4j 1.x won't break compatibility so they depend on that range without
>>>>>> actually testing against each version (newer versions may be released
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> their own software). I question whether such a mechanism is better or
>>>>>> worse
>>>>>> than depending on individual versions which may be overridden at a later
>>>>>> time (a la Maven). On the one hand, you don't need to release a new
>>>>>> version
>>>>>> of the application each time a dependency is updated. On the other hand,
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> one is actually running tests to ensure that the versions are really
>>>>>> compatible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is there a way to get module A to see log4j 1.0 and module B to see
>>>>>> log4j
>>>>>> 1.1 (using separate ClassLoaders)?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Gili
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>> http://jigsaw-dev.1059479.n5.nabble.com/Use-cases-for-version-ranges-tp5002801p5002801.html
>>>>>> Sent from the jigsaw-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>