Release version 0.4.0 #56

jbrisbin · 2014-05-21T15:35:56Z

We're currently blocked waiting on the issues being discussed around "heaviness" (#54) and the onComplete/onError API contract to be settled before we can move forward with our Reactive Streams implementation which is currently dependent on version 0.3.0 artifacts.

Are we in a position yet where we can consolidate the changes we discussed into a new 0.4.0 artifact so we can move forward with our implementation? We have other projects that will need to use our Reactive Streams implementation and they are essentially waiting on the outcome of these discussions. The longer this drags out in discussions the behinder we get. :)

We seem to be in general agreement on the vast majority of items, with some differences of opinion in some of the finer points. But I don't see anything holding us up from moving forward with a TCK or whatever we plan to release for 0.4.0.

Thoughts?

smaldini · 2014-05-21T16:00:39Z

+1. Obviously :). I am regretting the loss of Processor but we can leave without it for now. Not sure why that one has been ditched tho.

Sent from my iPhone

On 21 May 2014, at 16:35, Jon Brisbin [email protected] wrote:

We're currently blocked waiting on the issues being discussed around "heaviness" (#54) and the onComplete/onError API contract to be settled before we can move forward with our Reactive Streams implementation which is currently dependent on version 0.3.0 artifacts.

Are we in a position yet where we can consolidate the changes we discussed into a new 0.4.0 artifact so we can move forward with our implementation? We have other projects that will need to use our Reactive Streams implementation and they are essentially waiting on the outcome of these discussions. The longer this drags out in discussions the behinder we get. :)

We seem to be in general agreement on the vast majority of items, with some differences of opinion in some of the finer points. But I don't see anything holding us up from moving forward with a TCK or whatever we plan to release for 0.4.0.

Thoughts?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

benjchristensen · 2014-05-21T17:03:50Z

Why does Processor need to be part of the spec? Each library will have different ways of applying operators, processors, whatever. Interop will occur naturally for a Processor of any library that implements the correct Subscriber/Publisher interfaces.

benjchristensen · 2014-05-21T17:04:09Z

I'm okay with releasing 0.4 with the current code and spec.

smaldini · 2014-05-22T00:46:16Z

It's just that it is very convenient for combining libraries together or modularising streams, nothing about forcing a given transformation. If a library provide an arbitrary operation, I'd just like to be able to lift a current publisher with it and still retrieve it's output, like a logical RequestReply pattern (in fact it would look like this way in tcp application of the spec).

Sent from my iPhone

On 21 May 2014, at 18:03, Ben Christensen [email protected] wrote:

Why does Processor need to be part of the spec? Each library will have different ways of applying operators, processors, whatever. Interop will occur naturally for a Processor of any library that implements the correct Subscriber/Publisher interfaces.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

benjchristensen · 2014-05-22T05:10:08Z

Migrated this to #22 (comment) since Processor is off topic for this issue.

smaldini · 2014-05-22T08:00:21Z

Cheers, I weighed in this as it is quite simple to be re-introduced and since we will live on 0.4 for at least another couple month (until we get TCK updated which won't break this dependency). Can we give it a chance to be discussed in #22 for a couple days and poll a quick vote on it before validating 0.4 ? I'd prefer to be rather inclusive at first than exclusive.

rkuhn · 2014-05-22T11:29:43Z

I agree that we should soon release an updated version with the source-code changes. Jon already mentioned the TCK and this is an important point: we currently rely upon the 0.3 TCK for our Akka Streams test suite, as do others, so we must codify our current specification in order to be able to go forward.

This is a bit of a catch 22: we need the interfaces to develop the TCK and the TCK is needed for releasing the full package. We can break this cycle in two ways: develop the TCK based on locally published builds of the master branch, or release a 0.4.0-M1 without the TCK. I would prefer the latter, then we get stable builds for creating at least three compliant implementations so that we can discuss the emerging TCK meaningfully (i.e. backed by real code).

viktorklang · 2014-05-26T09:19:59Z

@rkuhn +1
@smaldini Please see my last comment in #22

viktorklang · 2014-05-31T12:18:48Z

Processor is in now. I assume we need to go over the spec and make sure it's in good shape and then have a stab at the TCK. Who does what?

smaldini · 2014-06-02T12:22:19Z

Bare from editing Readme.md (which I am doing now), by stabbing the TCK you mean remove it or quickly adapt it ?

viktorklang · 2014-06-02T12:34:17Z

@smaldini We also need the spec updated.

smaldini · 2014-06-02T12:41:54Z

BTW in https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams/tree/edit-doc-simplified-types I was thinking about reactive-streams-spi name, should that change to just reactive-streams since we have simplified types now ? And version is set to 0.4.M1 as proposed here but I am not sure about this.

smaldini · 2014-06-02T13:05:43Z

We can reintroduce the removed spec files and amend them. WDYT?

jbrisbin · 2014-06-02T13:05:44Z

Small thing, but if we're following "correct" semantic versioning, there should be three decimal version numbers and an alphanumeric identifier. e.g. 0.4.0.M1

viktorklang · 2014-06-02T13:20:09Z

Yes, we need to revive the spec and make sure it reflects the decisions made since it was written.

smaldini · 2014-06-02T13:48:20Z

So the https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams/blob/edit-doc-simplified-types/tck/src/main/resources/spec.md is online again. But now we need a cross review to amend the doc. Starting from the simplest, Processor pretty much not changed (still obeys both P/S rules, and still propagating cancel upstreams,complete downstream).

smaldini · 2014-06-02T16:32:32Z

Changes in #61

smaldini · 2014-06-02T16:38:19Z

note that specs.md and README.md could be merged. /cc @viktorklang @benjchristensen

smaldini · 2014-06-28T22:24:41Z

0.4.0.M1 is on MC. Not yet closing this issue as we discuss the last comments. @viktorklang sent a reminder on any of them :)

alexandru · 2014-07-04T11:50:52Z

So what's left to be done for 0.4.0, now that M1 is released?

viktorklang · 2014-07-04T11:55:20Z

@alexandru Going through the open Issues and settling them as well as porting the TCK to the new spec.
Afaik @smaldini and @ktoso/@drewhk are taking a stab at porting the TCK.

viktorklang · 2014-07-18T14:37:14Z

Missing prerequisites for 0.4.0

#85
#83

smaldini · 2014-09-19T11:57:22Z

Now #85 and #83 are done, I'm going to pimp the version to 0.4.0 and release the artifacts.

smaldini · 2014-09-19T16:17:41Z

Waiting for Maven Central to sync on 0.4.0

viktorklang · 2014-09-19T16:20:01Z

Awesome, thanks @smaldini!

viktorklang · 2014-09-27T15:32:25Z

@smaldini it seems like you didn't push the tag to the repo, could you do
that so I can update the README.md to point to the 0.4.0 release?

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Stephane Maldini [email protected]
wrote:

Waiting for Maven Central to sync on 0.4.0

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment)
.

Cheers,
√

viktorklang · 2014-09-27T15:40:16Z

@smaldini nm, I'll push the tag.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM, √iktor Ҡlang [email protected]
wrote:

@smaldini it seems like you didn't push the tag to the repo, could you do
that so I can update the README.md to point to the 0.4.0 release?

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Stephane Maldini <
[email protected]> wrote:

Waiting for Maven Central to sync on 0.4.0

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment)
.

Cheers,
√

Cheers,
√

smaldini · 2014-09-27T20:39:38Z

Oh my bad I was waiting for the maven artifacts to be published and I probably felt asleep! Thanks Viktor!

Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Sep 2014, at 4:40 pm, Viktor Klang (√) [email protected] wrote:

@smaldini nm, I'll push the tag.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM, √iktor Ҡlang [email protected]
wrote:

@smaldini it seems like you didn't push the tag to the repo, could you do
that so I can update the README.md to point to the 0.4.0 release?

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Stephane Maldini <
[email protected]> wrote:

Waiting for Maven Central to sync on 0.4.0

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment)
.

Cheers,
√

Cheers,
√
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

viktorklang · 2014-09-27T20:40:24Z

No worries
Please have a look at my PRs :)

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Stephane Maldini <[email protected]

wrote:

Oh my bad I was waiting for the maven artifacts to be published and I
probably felt asleep! Thanks Viktor!

Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Sep 2014, at 4:40 pm, Viktor Klang (√) [email protected]
wrote:

@smaldini nm, I'll push the tag.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM, √iktor Ҡlang [email protected]
wrote:

@smaldini it seems like you didn't push the tag to the repo, could you
do
that so I can update the README.md to point to the 0.4.0 release?

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Stephane Maldini <
[email protected]> wrote:

Waiting for Maven Central to sync on 0.4.0

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams/issues/56#issuecomment-56199438>

.

Cheers,
√

Cheers,
√
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment)
.

Cheers,
√

smaldini · 2014-09-27T22:10:16Z

I swear I will after a couple mojitos! Cheers mate for the PR and again
sorry.

On Saturday, September 27, 2014, Viktor Klang (√) [email protected]
wrote:

No worries
Please have a look at my PRs :)

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:39 PM, Stephane Maldini <
[email protected]
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');

wrote:

Oh my bad I was waiting for the maven artifacts to be published and I
probably felt asleep! Thanks Viktor!

Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Sep 2014, at 4:40 pm, Viktor Klang (√) <[email protected]
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
wrote:

@smaldini nm, I'll push the tag.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM, √iktor Ҡlang <[email protected]
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
wrote:

@smaldini it seems like you didn't push the tag to the repo, could
you
do
that so I can update the README.md to point to the 0.4.0 release?

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Stephane Maldini <
[email protected]
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote:

Waiting for Maven Central to sync on 0.4.0

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<

https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams/issues/56#issuecomment-56199438>

.

Cheers,
√

Cheers,
√
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<
https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams/issues/56#issuecomment-57065008>

.

Cheers,
√

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment)
.

Stéphane

benjchristensen mentioned this issue May 22, 2014

Remove Processor Interface #22

Closed

alexandru mentioned this issue Jun 22, 2014

Integration with the Reactive Streams protocol monix/monix#11

Closed

viktorklang mentioned this issue Jul 18, 2014

Release 0.4.0 #86

Closed

smaldini closed this as completed in 7d47cb0 Sep 19, 2014

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Release version 0.4.0 #56

Release version 0.4.0 #56

jbrisbin commented May 21, 2014

smaldini commented May 21, 2014

benjchristensen commented May 21, 2014

benjchristensen commented May 21, 2014

smaldini commented May 22, 2014

benjchristensen commented May 22, 2014

smaldini commented May 22, 2014

rkuhn commented May 22, 2014

viktorklang commented May 26, 2014

viktorklang commented May 31, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

viktorklang commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

jbrisbin commented Jun 2, 2014

viktorklang commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 28, 2014

alexandru commented Jul 4, 2014

viktorklang commented Jul 4, 2014

viktorklang commented Jul 18, 2014

smaldini commented Sep 19, 2014

smaldini commented Sep 19, 2014

viktorklang commented Sep 19, 2014

viktorklang commented Sep 27, 2014

viktorklang commented Sep 27, 2014

smaldini commented Sep 27, 2014

viktorklang commented Sep 27, 2014

smaldini commented Sep 27, 2014

Release version 0.4.0 #56

Release version 0.4.0 #56

Comments

jbrisbin commented May 21, 2014

smaldini commented May 21, 2014

benjchristensen commented May 21, 2014

benjchristensen commented May 21, 2014

smaldini commented May 22, 2014

benjchristensen commented May 22, 2014

smaldini commented May 22, 2014

rkuhn commented May 22, 2014

viktorklang commented May 26, 2014

viktorklang commented May 31, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

viktorklang commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

jbrisbin commented Jun 2, 2014

viktorklang commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 2, 2014

smaldini commented Jun 28, 2014

alexandru commented Jul 4, 2014

viktorklang commented Jul 4, 2014

viktorklang commented Jul 18, 2014

smaldini commented Sep 19, 2014

smaldini commented Sep 19, 2014

viktorklang commented Sep 19, 2014

viktorklang commented Sep 27, 2014

viktorklang commented Sep 27, 2014

smaldini commented Sep 27, 2014

viktorklang commented Sep 27, 2014

smaldini commented Sep 27, 2014

Stéphane