We will want both, correct?  versionless jars for non-maven, versioned for maven?

---

From: jboss-development-bounces@lists.jboss.org [mailto:jboss-development-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Scott M Stark
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:44 AM
To: Carlo de Wolf
Cc: JBoss.org development list
Subject: [JBoss-dev] Re: Version numbers in library filenames - Bad

It looks like the jarName can be overriden. I'll see if I can rebuild the jboss-common jars without the version as it will require a constant updating of the eclipse projects in jbossas since jbossas is not build using maven yet.

Carlo de Wolf wrote:

It is possible by specifying extra parameters with the goal.
 
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-jar-plugin/jar-mojo.html
 
I don't have an example at hand.
 
Carlo
 
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 07:54 -0700, Scott M Stark wrote:
 

I agree, but this is the maven convention and as far as I know cannot be 
undone short of hacking the jar plugin.
 
Dimitris Andreadis wrote:
 

I've seen a few cases where in repository.jboss.com the version number
for a library is included in the library filename,
 
E.g.
antlr-2.7.6.jar
addressing-1.0.jar
odmg-3.0.jar
quartz-all-1.5.2.jar
dtdparser121.jar
commons-lang-2.1.jar
myfaces-impl-1.1.3.jar
 
Even worse:
Cglib/2.1.0/lib/cglib.jar, cglib-2.1.1.jar
 
This is wrong, because
- whenever a library is updated we have to correct all explicit
references to it
- If you don't wipe your thirdparty on every update you may end up with
3 different versions of the same library and wonder for hours what's
wrong.
 
The version is encoded in the path and the library's
META-INF/MANIFEST.MF, not the filename, e.g:
 
apache-logging/1.0.3/lib/commons-logging.jar
 
For existing libs the harm is already done, but for new library
additions to repository.jboss.com, please have that in mind and remove
any version number from the filenames.
 
Thanks
/Dimitris