Ho,


It was Antoni Mylka who said at the right time 28.04.2008 22:48 the following words:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Christiaan Fluit
<christiaan.fluit@aduna-software.com> wrote:
  
Leo Sauermann wrote:
 > Chris, your argumentation of "implementors will surely provide their own
 > implementation and then will work with simple interfaces of crawler and
 > accessdata" falls insofar apart, as
 > * people are lazy and expect it to work out of the box
 > * people will get good information about how to optimize it if the
 > information is encoded within the AccessData interface.

 ok


 > => the new interface methods also sum up this discussion we have here at
 > the moment, this is needed documentation, otherwise our decisions will
 > remain to rot in a mailinglist... :-)
 >
 > About changing the interfaces:
 > according to our numbering policy [1], we may have to increase the
 > major/minor version number now:
 > " Minor versions should always have complete API back-compatiblity.
 > That's to say, any code developed against *X.0* should continue to run
 > without alteration against all *X.N* releases.
 > A major release may introduce incompatible API changes. The transition
 > strategy is to introduce new APIs in release *X.N*, deprecating old
 > APIs, then remove all deprecated APIs in release *X+1.0*."
 >
 > Hence, its Aperture 1.1.0 release.

 Actually, I would think this implies a 2.0 release! I.e. the format is
 "major.minor.bugfix". That is also how it works in the Lucene community,
 which we've taken as an example.

 That's another reason why I wasn't thrilled about doing an AccessData
 API change now.

    

That's important. IMHO we can't release SubCrawlers without those
changes in the AccessData that enable them to work reliably. If we
want to conform to the Apache version numbering policy then the choice
is either to release Aperture 2.0 or to drop SubCrawlers,
CrawlerBase.runSubCrawler and the AccessData from the next release and
wait for Aperture 2.0 to do them.
  
The key is: "any code developed against *X.0* should continue to run
 > without alteration against all *X.N* releases"

AGAINST meaning - users of our library. Internally, it is ok to change stuff.
And the changes to accessdata are internally - common users don't care about this.

The question is - do crawlerhandlers that are developed against the current version also work
with the subcrawlers? Did the interface of Crawlerhandler chnage?

It would look dumb to release 2.0 a few months after 1.0, or?

but I am also ok with 2.0


best
Leo


-- 
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________