[fdo-internals] Re: FDO 3.5.0 RC1

[Greg Boone]

In general, no. I agree we could trim this down, especially what gets published in the providers.xml file. I don't know of anyone who uses the version or FDO information in this file.

However, for this release, can we at least make things consistent? 

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:35 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Re: FDO 3.5.0 RC1


I think it's worth having a more general conversation about which of the version strings of a provider is the one that matters:

1. The one returned by FdoIConnectionInfo::GetProviderVersion
2. The stamped into the DLL by stampver
3. The one given by providers.xml <Version> tag
4. The one given by the name of the provider in providers.xml

There are also:

1. the FDO version returned by the provider
2. the FDO version given in the providers.xml entry for the provider
3. the version encoded in the name of the provider in providers.xml

The last three are always kept the same as the first four (apart from the stamp having build number in it perhaps), so one can argue that providers themselves don't have a version -- their version is given by the version of FDO in use.

Also, as far as I know none of those version strings are used in a meaningful way by FDO client applications. Even the version part of the provider name gets slashed off the name of the provider a lot of the time (see for example MapGuide's serverconfig.ini).

Do we need seven places encoding the same version string?

Traian



-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:13 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Re: FDO 3.5.0 RC1

Also, I see the provider name in the providers.xml file is 3.5.

Someone should make naming and versioning in this provider consistent and publish the public information applications should expect to this mail list.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Crispin_at_1Spatial
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:27 AM
To: fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [fdo-internals] Re: FDO 3.5.0 RC1


Minor thing -- the Win32 "File Version" for the KingOra files is "0.8.10" for
two and "0.8.13" for the other which is a bit odd
-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/FDO-3-5-0-RC1-tp4655350p4659666.html
Sent from the FDO Internals mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals