RE: [jbosscache-dev] FW: [JBoss-dev] Version numbers in libraryfilenames - Bad

Guys, I think this affects our decision to put version numbers in the library filenames, am I correct? Galder Zamarreño Support Engineer JBoss, a division of Red Hat -----Original Message----- From: jboss-development-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:jboss-development-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Andreadis Sent: 20 September 2006 13:37 To: JBoss.org development list Cc: The Core Subject: [JBoss-dev] Version numbers in library filenames - Bad 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 _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development _______________________________________________ jbosscache-dev mailing list jbosscache-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosscache-dev