[jetty-dev] Re: osgi manifest review

[Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

that's fine. the ranges are for exactly that purpose.  What is your risk 
tolerance.  If the producing team does not follow the same versioning 
scheme then you have to adjust your consumption accordingly.  I was just 
asking.

Jeff

Jesse McConnell wrote:
> hm, oh ya under osgi versioning it would be [1.5,2.0)
>
> right...
>
> think I was just being intolerant of having that much faith across
> version changes
>
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 19:56, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >