[seam-dev] Status check!

[Jason Porter]

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 06:43, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 04:33, Jason Porter <lightguard.jp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 16:36, Jordan Ganoff <jganoff at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Except releases would then no longer be 100% reproducible. Probably
>> > comes
>> > down to a matter of policy.
>>
>> This is a very big reason why not to use ranges for versions, of
>> course it's all pretty much thrown out the window at runtime because
>> which jar happens to be loaded first (and maven will use the most
>> current if anything references a more current version) wins.
>>
>> I'm with Jordan on this one, I say no version ranges for sake of
>> sanity in trying to reproduce builds.
>>
>
> I agree, version ranges are a thorny path to go down. However, keep this in
> mind. The version of Solder is the minimal API compatible version against
> which the modules compile. The end developer can simply drop in the newer
> version of Solder and instantly get the performance boost. Especially in
> this case where the change is internal to the Solder impl. They can even
> upgrade the impl without upgrading the api jar.
> Naturally, they would want to run their own test suite after the upgrade
> just like when you upgrade any version.
> Sound reasonable?
> -Dan

I'm fine with that, and the fact that we're doing two week time box
releases, a little perf issue like this isn't a major issue.  We had
perf issues with Weld for how long?

> --
> Dan Allen
> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>
>



-- 
Jason Porter
http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/lightguardjp

Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate

PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu