Have started unifying jareas and jboxes into a new project: jregions.
The original projects were written about three years apart and
I'd not realized how much overlap there was between them until
it was too late. This sort of code is a prime target for
value types: There
are four sets of specialized classes for int, long, double, and BigInteger
coordinates because Java's generics don't allow for abstraction over primitive
types without boxing. This is something that Brian Goetz
has complained about frequently. To paraphrase, "you sometimes
end up writing the same code eight times".
The jregions project is also a first attempt at moving to
the OSGi conventions
I mentioned previously. Thought I might as well use them for
all new code and migrate the old code when JDK 9 appears.
Broke a pure-ftpd install this
morning by recklessly failing to read the change log before upgrading.
Missed this note for 1.0.44:
The Perl and Python wrappers are gone. The daemon can now use a configuration file without requiring external dependencies.
This meant that the s6 run
script had to be updated:
#!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/sbin/pure-config.pl /ftpd/pure-ftpd.conf 2>&1
Became:
#!/bin/sh exec /usr/local/sbin/pure-ftpd /ftpd/pure-ftpd.conf 2>&1
The documentation was not updated. I had to work out how to get
the server to consume the configuration file by guessing, and had
to trace the executable with ktrace to make sure that it actually
was reading the file.
I tend to forget that not all projects use semantic
versioning and what I expected to be a
simple bug-fix update from 1.0.43 to 1.0.45 turned out to be a
service-disrupting change.
If you maintain software and you're reading this, please make your version numbers mean something!
Right now, all io7m modules are consistently
named. For version 1.0.0 of a given project p, the project usually
has artifacts with
coordinates
such as the following:
com.io7m.p:io7m-p-core:1.0.0 com.io7m.p:io7m-p-documentation:1.0.0 com.io7m.p:io7m-p-tests:1.0.0
I follow the Maven conventions with the addition of an io7m- prefix
on artifact names. This helps ensure uniqueness with respect to other
Java projects when considering artifact names in isolation; people who
aren't me are relatively unlikely to prefix their project names with
io7m-.
However, the conventions used for OSGi projects typically look something like:
com.io7m.p:com.io7m.p.core:1.0.0 com.io7m.p:com.io7m.p.documentation:1.0.0 com.io7m.p:com.io7m.p.tests:1.0.0
I suspect that this naming convention is rooted in the way that OSGi implementations typically deploy bundles: Bundles are placed into a single directory which is polled frequently by the container, with new bundles being automatically deployed. With the old Maven convention, the artifact names can come into conflict when placed in a single directory:
com.acme.math:math:1.0.0 -> math-1.0.0.jar org.example.math:math:1.0.0 -> math-1.0.0.jar
With the OSGi naming conventions, this would not occur:
com.acme.math:com.acme.math:1.0.0 -> com.acme.math-1.0.0.jar org.example.math:org.example.math:1.0.0 -> org.example.math-1.0.0.jar
As I move all of my projects over to OSGi, I suspect that I'm going to make sweeping major-version-incrementing changes to all projects by changing their names to use the OSGi naming conventions. Personally, I find it more aesthetically pleasing anyway.
There is the possibility that changing the entire name of a project could be considered a non-compatibility-breaking change according to semantic versioning: If I change the name of the project, I can't be breaking anyone's code because there could be no code in existence that has been compiled against the new name. In order to signal a clean break, however, I'm going to treat it as one and increment the major version numbers everywhere. One minor issue is that JDK 9 is due out in a few months and when that happens, I'm going to move all projects to using Java 9 as a minimum requirement. That is, they're going to require JDK 9 to build and all produced artifacts will be Java 9 bytecode. This is without a doubt a compatibility-breaking change. It may be better to wait until JDK 9 is out and then do the project renames, module descriptors, and the bytecode version increment all in one go.