We will want both, correct? versionless jars for non-maven, versioned for maven? ________________________________ From: jboss-development-bounces(a)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