Re: [jakartaee-platform-dev] VOTE: backward compatibility for descriptor

["Kevin Sutter" <sutter@xxxxxxxxxx>]

#3 is my vote.  Thanks!


---------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sutter 
STSM, MicroProfile and Jakarta EE architect @ IBM
e-mail:  sutter@xxxxxxxxxx     Twitter:  @kwsutter
phone: tl-553-3620 (office), 507-253-3620 (office)    
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinwsutter



From:
       Bill
Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To:
       jakartaee-platform
developer discussions <jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
       01/21/2020
13:59
Subject:
       [EXTERNAL]
[jakartaee-platform-dev] VOTE: backward compatibility for    
   descriptor schemas
Sent
by:        jakartaee-platform-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

After the discussion in today's meeting,
I agreed to send out a list
of alternatives and ask for votes.  We'll tally the votes and make
a
decision in next week's meeting.

Here's the alternatives we're considering:

1. Support for Jakarta EE 8 and earlier schemas is *optional* in
   Jakarta EE 9 products.

2. Support for Jakarta EE 8 and earlier schemas is *required* in
   Jakarta EE 9 products.

3. Support for Jakarta EE 8 *but not* earlier schemas is *required* in
   Jakarta EE 9 products; support for schemas earlier than Jakarta
EE 8
   is *optional* in Jakarta EE 9 products.

I'm not going to reiterate the pros and cons, but if you have any questions
about why or why not to support one of these options, let me know.

Note that the "earlier" criteria can be somewhat confusing since
not all
schemas were updated in Jakarta EE 8 (really Java EE 8) so some of the
"most current" schemas are from Java EE 7 or earlier.  In
such cases these
would still be considered Jakarta EE 8 schemas.

I'm sure there are other alternatives that are possible, but I don't think
we need to make this more complex at this point.

Vote now!  We'll decide next week.

Thanks.


Bill Shannon wrote on 1/20/20 12:38 PM:
> We need to update all the descriptor schemas to switch to a new URL.
> What should we do about support for the old schemas?
> 
> Should we handle this just like support for the old package names
and
> leave it to products to decide whether or not to support the old schemas?
> 
> Or should we continue to require that products support all the old
schemas
> as well as the new version?
> 
> 
> At first it seemed simpler and cleaner if new products with no need
for
> backward compatibility could just support the new schema.  But
just like
> in the past, the schemas will continue to evolve as the specs evolve
and
> products will need to be able to support multiple schemas.  So,
in the
> long run, it's not clear this really saves a lot for new products.
> 
> I guess I'm inclined to say that products must support all defined
versions
> of the schema and this is not a "backward compatibility"
issue.
> 
> Comments?
> _______________________________________________
> jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
> jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
> https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev
> 
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-platform-dev mailing list
jakartaee-platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-platform-dev