tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post2000457852049846537..comments2023-12-06T19:00:46.094+00:00Comments on OSGi Blog: Is 9903520300447984150353281023 Too Small?Jürgen Alberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02725834158183495837noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-21669575357803191462008-06-05T20:44:00.000+00:002008-06-05T20:44:00.000+00:00No se esta inventando Microsoft .Net lo usa, Java ...No se esta inventando Microsoft .Net lo usa, Java mismo lo Usa no es fundamentado su comentario y no he una invención es el estándar de los grandes no creo que tener cuatro números nos afecte. Es que siempre vemos lo que ya esta hecho y decimos que es perfecto (OSGi) y no queremos cambiarlo como informáticos debemos de saber que todo tiene cosas buenas y malas y en mi caso veo el sistema de leonardoavshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12733866191736609524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-26091722246964185932008-06-04T15:29:00.000+00:002008-06-04T15:29:00.000+00:00And what if we could do better?And what if we could do <A HREF="http://weblogs.java.net/blog/patrikbeno/archive/2008/05/versioning_can.html" REL="nofollow">better?</A>Patrik Beňohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06581021313590997726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-54149365278236250632008-05-31T16:17:00.000+00:002008-05-31T16:17:00.000+00:00Nice post from both of you (Alex and Peter). Actua...Nice post from both of you (Alex and Peter). Actually I still can't understand why people don't understand the importance of version numbers in component systems! The statement "largely backward-compatible (although minor incompatibilities might be possible)" is an absolute no go in my opinion! We finally arrived at a point, where we are able to automatically deal with different and potentially Mirkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05180331822627058711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-46137834268252981422008-05-30T12:52:00.000+00:002008-05-30T12:52:00.000+00:00Alex: Yes, should have included the link, thanks. ...Alex: Yes, should have included the link, thanks. Was a nice post btw.<BR/><BR/> Peter KriensPeter Krienshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11373850803487010328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-10824423587566756042008-05-30T12:51:00.000+00:002008-05-30T12:51:00.000+00:00elizarov: Yes you are right. I humble apologize an...elizarov: Yes you are right. I humble apologize and suggest we from now on mandate that all version numbers start with 1. Hmm. so we can solve the incompatibility. If the major part is always one, we have only 3 parts left and they map perfectly to the OSGi scheme!<BR/><BR/> Peter KriensPeter Krienshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11373850803487010328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-72171144497912460742008-05-30T12:39:00.000+00:002008-05-30T12:39:00.000+00:00Stanley's post was an attempt to rebut the points ...Stanley's post was an attempt to rebut the points I made:<BR/><BR/>http://alblue.blogspot.com/2008/05/version-numbers-and-jsr277.htmlAlBluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06362201865553416948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18772002.post-36080902658994377912008-05-30T10:34:00.000+00:002008-05-30T10:34:00.000+00:00I believe you've missed the key part of Stanley Ho...I believe you've missed the key part of Stanley Ho's rationale: "The JDK uses four numbers like 1.2.2_18 or 1.4.2_16 because of its longstanding practice that the major version is 1.". Everything else is irrelevant.elizarovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339534234190675498noreply@blogger.com