Skip to main content

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP

  • From: Volker Bauche < >
  • To:
  • Cc: Michael Lagally < >
  • Subject: [jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP
  • Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 11:40:51 +0200

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">(adding Michael, the spec lead of CLDC
      not being in the MEEP EG ;-) )<br>
      <br>
      Hm. Good point. Maybe there has to be a change in the CLDC 8 spec
      then.<br>
      @Michael, Roger: Pls. check<br>
      <br>
      -Volker<br>
      <br>
      Am 05.08.2013 11:35, schrieb Werner Keil:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAAGawe3XpjtBrU1=
      "
      type="cite">There is however an inconsistency between SE 8 (its
      JSR also says "Java SE 8"&nbsp;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
        href="http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=337";>http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=337</a>)
      take a newly introduced class like Clock where JavaDoc says since&nbsp;<span
style="color:rgb(53,56,51);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">1.8</span><br>
      and how we (most EG Members are in both JSRs, so "we" sounds like
      a safe bet here) handle this for CLDC 8 (1.8)
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Is that on purpose?</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Volker
          Bauche <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:
      " target="_blank">
      </a>&gt;</span>
          wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
              <div>We have to differ between:<br>
                <br>
                Platform level name: CLDC 8<br>
                Spec: CLDC 8<br>
                Configuration version: CLDC-1.8.0<br>
                microedition.configuration: CLDC-1.8<br>
                <br>
                So we have at least as the name of the spec and also to
                be used in javadocs etc.<br>
                "CLDC 8" and "MEEP 8" which is good and consistent.<br>
                <br>
                -Volker<br>
                <br>
                Am 05.08.2013 11:24, schrieb Werner Keil:<br>
              </div>
              <div>
                <div class="h5">
                  <blockquote type="cite">Well at the moment it simply
                    says "<span
style="color:rgb(53,56,51);font-size:12px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">CLDC

                      8</span>" 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<img
                      src="cid:part3.09020905.04020603@oracle.com"
                      goomoji="347" style="margin:0px
                      0.2ex;vertical-align:middle">)
                    <div> <br>
                    </div>
                    <div>Werner<br>
                      <br>
                      <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at
                        11:15 AM, Lampart Thomas <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a
                            moz-do-not-send="true"
                            href="mailto:
      "
                            target="_blank">
      </a>&gt;</span>
                        wrote:<br>
                        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0
                          0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
                          solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Volker, experts,<br>
                          <br>
                          Looks much better to me.<br>
                          Only one question: What will be the version
                          numbers for the related CLDC ?<br>
                          Will it be "CLDC 8" and "CLDC-8.0.0" then ?
                          Which would be good.<br>
                          Or will it still be "CLDC-1.8.0" ?<br>
                          <br>
                          Kind regards<br>
                          <span><font color="#888888">&nbsp; Thomas<br>
                            </font></span>
                          <div>
                            <div><br>
                              <br>
                              <br>
                              -----Original Message-----<br>
                              From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                href="mailto:
      "
                                target="_blank">
      </a>
                              [mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                href="mailto:
      "
                                target="_blank">
      </a>]<br>
                              Sent: Montag, 5. August 2013 11:11<br>
                              To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                                href="mailto:
      "
                                target="_blank">
      </a><br>
                              Subject: [jsr361-experts] Version
                              numbering for MEEP<br>
                              <br>
                              Dear experts,<br>
                              <br>
                              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.<br>
                              The outcome proposal is to have the
                              following, much more consistent version
                              numbers now:<br>
                              <br>
                              Platform-level name: "MEEP 8"<br>
                              Spec: "MEEP-8"<br>
                              Profile version: "MEEP-8.0.0"<br>
                              microedition.profile value: "MEEP-8.0"<br>
                              <br>
                              I think this is the variant matching our
                              ideas raised during the call<br>
                              best:: everything is "8", no confusion
                              between "8" and "1.x".<br>
                              <br>
                              Pls. let me know if you like this
                              solution, then I can fix this in the next
                              (and PR) draft version.<br>
                              <br>
                              Thanks -<br>
                              Volker<br>
                            </div>
                          </div>
                        </blockquote>
                      </div>
                      <br>
                    </div>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

Attachment: gifeo9PKfgS4x.gif
Description: GIF image



[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Version numbering for MEEP

(continued)

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Version numbering for MEEP

Werner Keil 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Lampart Thomas 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Volker Bauche 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Lampart Thomas 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Werner Keil 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Volker Bauche 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Werner Keil 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Werner Keil 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Volker Bauche 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Werner Keil 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Volker Bauche 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Werner Keil 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Michael Lagally 08/05/2013

[jsr361-experts] Re: [jsr361-observers] Re: Re: Re: Re: Version numbering for MEEP

Michael Lagally 08/06/2013
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close