[jetty-dev] Re: osgi manifest review

[Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ok.  is there a reason why you narrowed the range for SLF?

Jeff

Jesse McConnell wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I have the following generating now...I think this is what we are looking for :)
>
> Import-Package: org.eclipse.jetty.util;version="[7.0,8.0)",org.eclipse
>  .jetty.util.ajax;version="[7.0,8.0)",org.eclipse.jetty.util.component
>  ;version="[7.0,8.0)",org.eclipse.jetty.util.log;version="[7.0,8.0)",o
>  rg.eclipse.jetty.util.resource;version="[7.0,8.0)",org.eclipse.jetty.
>  util.thread;version="[7.0,8.0)",org.slf4j;version="[1.5,1.6)",resolut
>  ion:=optional
>
> cheers,
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 14:42, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
> > You are going to force me to join jetty-dev...
> >
> > On a different note, the import package version ranges should eventually
> > have an upper bound.  As it is you are saying you will  work fine with
> > version 10 of, for exampel, org.eclipse.jetty.http.  Perhaps but that is a
> > tall order to say up front.  Given that we went for years without import
> > versions at all, this is something you can address later.
> >
> >
> > what would this look like and I'll see about getting that addressed
> > sooner rather then later..
> >
> >
> > given the version number semantics we use
> >     http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Version_Numbering
> > most dependencies are spec'd with an upper bound that is one higher than the
> > major of the lower and non-inclusive.  That is, 8.0 is not expected to be
> > binary compatible with 7.0 so a dependency on something in 7.x should be
> > [7.<whatever is the lowest you need>, 8.0.0)
> >
> > Note the ')' at the end.  that is non-inclusive of 8.0.0.  So everything
> > from the lower bound up to but not including 8.0.0.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >