-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 618
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Expose sequence recovery data via SessionStateListener #315
Conversation
Thanks for the PR! Edit: put to 3.0.0 milestone due to interface changes. |
Yes, actuallty that was our exact use case. I tried rolling our own logic, saw it felt and acted 'kind of iffy' and decided to solve the problem at the source instead
I'm not well aware of QFJ's release cycle/policy, but I do see that a version is released once a year or so. @chrjohn Is it crucial that patch versions don't contain interface changes? |
We try to follow semantic versioning. We need to increase the major version when backward incompatible changes are introduced. Since you have added new interface methods, users need to adapt (i.e. add implementations for these methods) and recompile their applications. IMHO these are backward incompatible changes. But maybe I am misinterpreting this. @the-thing or @philipwhiuk , you have any opinion on that? You could of course add |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just had a quick look. The change itself looks OK. This is an enhancement, so it probably does not require immediate release.
I'm not against releasing it with the next minor with default methods. They have been used in the past quickfix.Connector
, quickfix.MessageFactory
etc.
OK, thanks for your opinion on this @the-thing . So how about converting all methods in |
@chrjohn Done, all interface methods now have void defaults. |
@chrjohn Just checking. As the milestone has changed to QFJ 2.2.1, is there anything preventing us from merging this PR? |
Time constraints... ;) Just wanted to take a closer look, hopefully the next days... |
Just realized that @the-thing already took the time to do a review, so this is good to go. |
Fixes #313
See #313 for additional details