TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange - Revision history

JaroslavTulach: /* Real vs. Ideal */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:51:54 GMT

Real vs. Ideal

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 7 November 2012
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]]. Rather than impossing [[semantic versioning\|idealistic rules]] on [[API]] designers, it is more beneficial to give users of those [[API]]s a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|range]]).		Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]]. Rather than impossing [[semantic versioning\|idealistic rules]] on [[API]] designers, it is more beneficial to give users of those [[API]]s a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|range]]).

-	[[Semantic versioning]] should still remain the basic (and ideal) approach for classification of incompatiblities. However, when there is an error in the [[~~StabilityhOfAPI~~]] classification, there are [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] to help everyone to recover from it.	+	[[Semantic versioning]] should still remain the basic (and ideal) approach for classification of incompatiblities. However, when there is an error in the [[StabilityOfAPI]] classification, there are [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] to help everyone to recover from it.

JaroslavTulach: /* Real vs. Ideal */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:51:36 GMT

Real vs. Ideal

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:51, 7 November 2012
Line 23:		Line 23:
	While the [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is a clearly understandable feature of [[semantic versioning]], in real, [[clueless]] world we can get further by giving the ultimate power of deciding whether something is or is not [[compatible]] to users of [[API]] modules.		While the [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is a clearly understandable feature of [[semantic versioning]], in real, [[clueless]] world we can get further by giving the ultimate power of deciding whether something is or is not [[compatible]] to users of [[API]] modules.

-	Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]].	+	Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]]. Rather than impossing [[semantic versioning\|idealistic rules]] on [[API]] designers, it is more beneficial to give users of those [[API]]s a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|range]]).

-	~~Rather than impossing~~ [[~~semantic~~ versioning~~\|idealistic rules~~]] ~~on [[API]] designers~~, it is ~~more beneficial to give users of those~~ [[~~API~~]]~~s a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide~~ [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|~~range~~]]).	+	[[Semantic versioning]] should still remain the basic (and ideal) approach for classification of incompatiblities. However, when there is an error in the [[StabilityhOfAPI]] classification, there are [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] to help everyone to recover from it.

JaroslavTulach: /* Real vs. Ideal */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:48:44 GMT

Real vs. Ideal

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:48, 7 November 2012
Line 21:		Line 21:
	== Real vs. Ideal ==		== Real vs. Ideal ==

-	While the [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is a clearly understandable feature of [[semantic versioning]], in real, [[clueless]] world it we can get further by giving the ultimate power of deciding whether something is or is not [[compatible]] to users of [[API]] modules. Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]].	+	While the [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is a clearly understandable feature of [[semantic versioning]], in real, [[clueless]] world we can get further by giving the ultimate power of deciding whether something is or is not [[compatible]] to users of [[API]] modules.
		+
		+	Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]].

	Rather than impossing [[semantic versioning\|idealistic rules]] on [[API]] designers, it is more beneficial to give users of those [[API]]s a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|range]]).		Rather than impossing [[semantic versioning\|idealistic rules]] on [[API]] designers, it is more beneficial to give users of those [[API]]s a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|range]]).

JaroslavTulach: /* Transitivity in Semantic World */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:44:47 GMT

Transitivity in Semantic World

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 7 November 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:
	# we go against the motto of [[semantic versioning]]		# we go against the motto of [[semantic versioning]]

-	~~The~~ interface of <math>N</math> are re-exported and thus basically part of the public signatures of <math>M</math>. As there was an incompatible change in these interfaces, [[semantic versioning]] urges us to increment the major version of module <math>M</math>. The [[incompatible]] change in <math>N</math> [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitively]] influences <math>M</math>. Its author should release <math>M_{2.0}</math>!	+	Some parts of interface of <math>N</math> are re-exported and thus basically part of the public signatures of <math>M</math>. As there was an incompatible change in these interfaces, [[semantic versioning]] urges us to increment the major version of module <math>M</math>. The [[incompatible]] change in <math>N</math> [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitively]] influences <math>M</math>. Its author should release <math>M_{2.0}</math>!

	== When Things Go Relative ==		== When Things Go Relative ==

JaroslavTulach: /* Transitivity in Semantic World */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:43:49 GMT

Transitivity in Semantic World

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:43, 7 November 2012
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Imagine you have a module <math>M_{1.0}</math> which re-exports [[API]]s provided by module <math>N_{1.0}</math>. The re-exported [[API]]s of module <math>N</math> become part of the [[API]] of module <math>M</math> as they may be visible in <math>M</math>'s own class signatures as parameter or return types, or super types.		Imagine you have a module <math>M_{1.0}</math> which re-exports [[API]]s provided by module <math>N_{1.0}</math>. The re-exported [[API]]s of module <math>N</math> become part of the [[API]] of module <math>M</math> as they may be visible in <math>M</math>'s own class signatures as parameter or return types, or super types.

-	Let's now continue by ~~showing~~ envisioning that the author of module <math>N</math> decides to release new, [[incompatible]] version. According to rules of [[semantic versioning]] the version should have different major version - e.g. let it be called <math>N_{2.0}</math>.	+	Let's now continue by envisioning that the author of module <math>N</math> decides to release new, [[incompatible]] version. According to rules of [[semantic versioning]] the version should have different major version - e.g. let it be called <math>N_{2.0}</math>.

	Often, the producer of module <math>M</math> would like to run on the most recent version of module <math>N</math>. As such it may consider creating new version of own module which would depend on <math>N_{2.0}</math>. Can this version be called <math>M_{1.1}</math>? Well, if we allow it to be called <math>M_{1.1}</math>, then:		Often, the producer of module <math>M</math> would like to run on the most recent version of module <math>N</math>. As such it may consider creating new version of own module which would depend on <math>N_{2.0}</math>. Can this version be called <math>M_{1.1}</math>? Well, if we allow it to be called <math>M_{1.1}</math>, then:

JaroslavTulach: /* Transitivity in Semantic World */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:43:30 GMT

Transitivity in Semantic World

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:43, 7 November 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	== Transitivity in Semantic World ==		== Transitivity in Semantic World ==

-	Imagine you have a module <math>M_{1.0}</math> which re-exports [[API]]s provided by module <math>N_{1.0}</math>. The re-exported [[API]]s of module <math>N</math> become part of the [[API]] of module <math>M</math> as they may be visible in <math>M</math>'s own class signatures as parameter or return types, ~~etc~~.	+	Imagine you have a module <math>M_{1.0}</math> which re-exports [[API]]s provided by module <math>N_{1.0}</math>. The re-exported [[API]]s of module <math>N</math> become part of the [[API]] of module <math>M</math> as they may be visible in <math>M</math>'s own class signatures as parameter or return types, or super types.

	Let's now continue by showing envisioning that the author of module <math>N</math> decides to release new, [[incompatible]] version. According to rules of [[semantic versioning]] the version should have different major version - e.g. let it be called <math>N_{2.0}</math>.		Let's now continue by showing envisioning that the author of module <math>N</math> decides to release new, [[incompatible]] version. According to rules of [[semantic versioning]] the version should have different major version - e.g. let it be called <math>N_{2.0}</math>.

JaroslavTulach at 01:42, 7 November 2012

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:42:50 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:42, 7 November 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	[[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] happens when reusing [[API]]s provided by others as described in [[Chapter 10]]. However ~~[[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]]~~ is only meaningful when using [[semantic versioning]] - in case of general [[RangeDependencies]], it looses its meaning.	+	[[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] happens when reusing [[API]]s provided by others as described in [[Chapter 10]]. However the whole concept is only meaningful when using [[semantic versioning]] - in case of general [[RangeDependencies]], it looses its meaning.

	== Transitivity in Semantic World ==		== Transitivity in Semantic World ==

JaroslavTulach at 01:42, 7 November 2012

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:42:11 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:42, 7 November 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~Happens~~ when reusing [[API]]s provided by others as described in [[Chapter 10]]. However [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is only meaningful when using [[semantic versioning]] - in case of general [[RangeDependencies]], it looses its meaning.	+	[[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] happens when reusing [[API]]s provided by others as described in [[Chapter 10]]. However [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is only meaningful when using [[semantic versioning]] - in case of general [[RangeDependencies]], it looses its meaning.

	== Transitivity in Semantic World ==		== Transitivity in Semantic World ==

JaroslavTulach: /* Real vs. Ideal */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:41:51 GMT

Real vs. Ideal

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:41, 7 November 2012
Line 23:		Line 23:
	While the [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is a clearly understandable feature of [[semantic versioning]], in real, [[clueless]] world it we can get further by giving the ultimate power of deciding whether something is or is not [[compatible]] to users of [[API]] modules. Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]].		While the [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is a clearly understandable feature of [[semantic versioning]], in real, [[clueless]] world it we can get further by giving the ultimate power of deciding whether something is or is not [[compatible]] to users of [[API]] modules. Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]].

-	Rather than impossing [[semantic versioning\|idealistic rules]] on [[API]] designers, it is more beneficial to give users of those [[API]] a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|range]]).	+	Rather than impossing [[semantic versioning\|idealistic rules]] on [[API]] designers, it is more beneficial to give users of those [[API]]s a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|range]]).

JaroslavTulach: /* When Things Go Relative */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:40:56 GMT

When Things Go Relative

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:40, 7 November 2012
Line 19:		Line 19:
	{{:StabilityOfAPI}}		{{:StabilityOfAPI}}

		+	== Real vs. Ideal ==

		+	While the [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange]] is a clearly understandable feature of [[semantic versioning]], in real, [[clueless]] world it we can get further by giving the ultimate power of deciding whether something is or is not [[compatible]] to users of [[API]] modules. Expressing [[dependencies]] as [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|ranges]] is an ideal tool to achive that. The meaning of [[TransitivityOfIncompatibleChange\|transitivity]] then gets more fuzzy and less clear, but that may be a natural consequence of the complexity of real world module [[dependencies]].

-	[[~~TBD~~]].	+	Rather than impossing [[semantic versioning\|idealistic rules]] on [[API]] designers, it is more beneficial to give users of those [[API]] a right to vote (e.g. to select narrow or wide [[RangeDependenciesAnalysed\|range]]).