create avro spec for v 2.2

[ghost]

move 2.1 version into org.openrtb.common.api.v_2_1 so that we can also create org.openrtb.common.api.v_2_2

[chompi]

Hi Unruly Developer :)

I appreciate your work to update the Avro protocol files to match 2.2.
Thank you for that.

Why can't we just create a branch for 2.2 as opposed to embedding version
information in the API protocol file names? Also, you could add a version
tag inside the protocol file (Avro allows that). Any thoughts?

Best
Pankaj

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Unruly Developers <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

move 2.1 version into org.openrtb.common.api.v_2_1 so that we can also

create org.openrtb.common.api.v_2_2

You can merge this Pull Request by running

git pull https://github.com/devunrulymedia/openrtb2x versions_2_2

Or view, comment on, or merge it at:

#57
Commit Summary

• move 2.1 version into org.openrtb.common.api.v_2_1 so that we can
  also create org.openrtb.common.api.v_2_2

File Changes

• R common/src/main/avro/openrtbapi_v_2_1.avpr
  https://github.com/openrtb/openrtb2x/pull/57/files#diff-0 (2)
• A common/src/main/avro/openrtbapi_v_2_2.avpr
  https://github.com/openrtb/openrtb2x/pull/57/files#diff-1 (355)

Patch Links:

• https://github.com/openrtb/openrtb2x/pull/57.patch
• https://github.com/openrtb/openrtb2x/pull/57.diff

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#57.

Pankaj Shroff
shroffG@Gmail.com

[ghost]

Hi Pankaj,

We wanted to be able to support more than one version of the spec for integrating with different partners. If we namespace them this way, it's pretty easy to do that, we just have to be able to work out which one somebody is supplying us, and as you said, that's relatively easy. If we try to rely on maven versioning, we'll be unable to have more than one version in any given class loader.

Clive