[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Version numbering for MEEP
- From: Werner Keil <
- Subject: [jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Version numbering for MEEP
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:24:49 +0200
Well at the moment it simply says "CLDC 8" in JavaDocs e.g. of the
previews. Given the code-base uses things introduced in Java 8 or earlier,
a simple "1.8" or so could be confusing. Good question is, whether CLDC's
internal version number is 8.0.0 or 1.8.0 like the SE equivalent (also for
some applications which may run on both, I recall some Eclipse projects
running into trouble when ICU4J changed and the 50.x+ versions went into
this year's Kepler release train[?])
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Lampart Thomas
> Hi Volker, experts,
> Looks much better to me.
> Only one question: What will be the version numbers for the related CLDC ?
> Will it be "CLDC 8" and "CLDC-8.0.0" then ? Which would be good.
> Or will it still be "CLDC-1.8.0" ?
> Kind regards
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Montag, 5. August 2013 11:11
> Subject: [jsr361-experts] Version numbering for MEEP
> Dear experts,
> coming back to my action item about need to improve the something
> confusing version numbering for MEEP in the current draft of the spec, I
> have discussed this with ME8 archtects and reflected our discussion during
> the call last week.
> The outcome proposal is to have the following, much more consistent
> version numbers now:
> Platform-level name: "MEEP 8"
> Spec: "MEEP-8"
> Profile version: "MEEP-8.0.0"
> microedition.profile value: "MEEP-8.0"
> I think this is the variant matching our ideas raised during the call
> best:: everything is "8", no confusion between "8" and "1.x".
> Pls. let me know if you like this solution, then I can fix this in the
> next (and PR) draft version.
> Thanks -
Description: GIF image