Useless lying version ranges
A frequent request from the Ceylon community is support for version ranges in expressing module dependencies. There's no doubt that our current module system is too inflexible in terms of dependency resolution in the face of version conflicts, and I have some reasonable ideas about how to address that problem without needing version ranges. But I would like to document precisely why I think version ranges are strictly-speaking useless at best, and harmful at worst.
First, a philosophical point: version ranges encourage module authors to make untested or untestable claims about their modules, such as:
my.moduleis compatible with
Yeah, right, 'cos you've actually tested
every single minor version and point release of
other.dependency, including all the versions that have not
even been released yet! Sorry, but I simply don't believe
you and I have to assume you're lying to me. Almost nobody
tests their program or library with many different versions
of its dependencies, and it's easy to see why they don't: as
soon as we have a program with several dependencies, we face
a factorial explosion of dependency version combinations.
OK, sure, you might argue, but version ranges are still better than nothing. Alright, alright. I'm not the kind of guy who much buys into the notion that something broken is better than nothing, but I realize I'm in the minority on that one, 'cos, y'know, worse is better, as the neckbeards keep telling me.
So let's see what we could do to make the most of version ranges. Let's consider the problem first from the point of view of two library authors assigning version ranges to their modules, and then from the point of view of the program or person assembling these modules.
Let's suppose my library
x.y depends on
tested and released
x.y with the then-current version of
org.hibernate, which was
4.1.3. What version range would
I have chosen when declaring this dependency?
- Well, for the lower bound I decided to lie and write
4.1.0. Typically, I hadn't actually tested
4.1.2, but I had been using
4.1.2in development at one stage and it seemed to work, and I didn't see any particular reason it wouldn't also work with
4.1.1. On the other hand, maybe I could have just picked
4.1.3. (It's not going to matter for the rest of this argument.)
- For the upper bound, I had no clue. How could I possibly
have known at the time which future unreleased version of
org.hibernatewould break my library? Assigning the upper bound of
4.1.3would have seemed much too restrictive, so what I did was assume that
org.hibernateis following the completely untestable semantic versioning standard, and that future versions of Hibernate 4.x would not have any bugs.
Thus, I arrived at the version range
4.[1.0-] using some
imaginary syntax I just pulled out of my ahem, excuse me,
invented for the sake of argument.
A critical thing to notice here is that, from the point of view of the library authors, there is no reasonable way to determine an accurate upper bound to the version range. This is utterly typical and normal and is the case for almost any library author!
Now, sometime later, you released your library
also depends on
org.hibernate. At this point, the current
4.2.0. Quite atypically,
you actually do test your library with a previous version
of its dependency, and so you know that it is actually
4.1.5 (the latest release of
Thus, you arrive at the version range
Now suppose some poor soul wants to use both our libraries
together in their program, thus taking advantage of the bugs
in both of them. So now, when assembling the program, what
org.hibernate should the module system choose.
Let's consider the reasonable options:
- Pick the latest release that fits the version ranges, that
is, the latest release of 4.x. This approach means that a
new release of
org.hibernatecan break our application. We're picking a release which hasn't been tested with either
a.b. Not acceptable.
- Pick the earliest release that fits the version ranges, in
4.1.5. This is better. At least there's a chance that one of the libraries (in this case,
a.b) has actually been tested with this version. Still, according to this strategy the system could in general pick a dependency version that's earlier than all the current versions when the libraries were developed. That seems quite suboptimal.
- Pick 4.2.0, since that was the current version of
org.hibernatewhen one of the libraries was developed, so we know for a fact that it works with at least one of the libraries, and it's newer that the version that the other library was developed with. This seems to me like it's by far the most robust and natural strategy.
There are some variations on this scenario, which raise other possible choices, and I'm going to let you experiment with the variations yourself, and see how it affects the conclusion. But as far as I can tell, there's essentially no common scenario in which the third strategy isn't at least as good as any other possible strategy.
And now note that this third strategy doesn't actually use version ranges at all! We can write down this strategy without reference to version ranges. It just says: pick the latest version of the dependency among the versions with which the libraries were developed. Version ranges don't really add any useful additional information to that, especially in light of the fact that upper bounds are essentially impossible to determine, and even lower bounds often lie. Why inject additional inaccurate information into the mix when we already have an algorithm that produces a result without depending on guesses and lies and unverifiable assumptions? (I apologize for going all logical positivist on your arse.)
What do you think? Am I wrong? Is there some reasonably common scenario where the module system can be expected to produce a better outcome with the addition of version range information? Is there a scenario in which upper bound information doesn't lie? Is there a strategy involving version ranges that is unambiguously better than my admittedly unsophisticated "pick the latest version" approach?