[hibernate-dev] JPA API jar artifacts

[Emmanuel Bernard]

+1 to have a suffix not related tot he draft. Like you I have pushed
spec jars that did not reflect eh state of a draft necessarily.

BTW, why retrofit that scheme? Why not just apply it for 2.1?

Emmanuel

On Tue 2013-08-27  9:57, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> I am contemplating duplicating[1] our existing JPA API jars to use a 
> better GAV naming scheme, specifically the GAV naming scheme we plan on 
> adopting for any new JPA specs.  We have used completely different 
> naming scheme for 1.0 then we did for 2.0 and 2.1.  And even for 2.0 and 
> 2.1 we used the JPA version in the artifactId rather than the version 
> portion of GAV.
> 
> The new scheme being proposed would be to use the groupId we have been 
> using for 2.0/2.1 ("org.hibernate.javax.persistence").  We would use the 
> artifactId we have been using for 2.0/2.1, but without the 2.0/2.1 
> portion.  Currently, for example, we have "hibernate-jpa-2.1-api" as the 
> artifactId; this would become just "hibernate-jpa-api".  We'd then move 
> the JPA version as *part of* the GAV version.  Essentially the GAV 
> version would be broken into buckets with JPA version taking up the 
> first 2 positions, a "bugfix" position, and then a qualifier.  Given 
> 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1 that would give us:
> 1) org.hibernate.javax.persistence:hibernate-jpa-api:1.0.0.Final.jar
> 2) org.hibernate.javax.persistence:hibernate-jpa-api:2.0.0.Final.jar
> 3) org.hibernate.javax.persistence:hibernate-jpa-api:2.1.0.Final.jar
> 
> I would only duplicate the last of each of 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1 into the new 
> naming.
> 
> Moving forward, the only thing that "changes" would be qualifiers if/as 
> we start working on new spec versions and possibly "bugfix" portion (the 
> last '0') if we encounter problems in the jpa api jars after the fact 
> (normal bugfix semantics).  We are discussing standardizing on this 
> across the JBoss community and specifically discussing how to handle the 
> qualifiers for ongoing work.  One option would be a new qualifier 
> "Draft".  It fits reasonably well in the existing (OSGi defined) alpha 
> sorting of qualifiers aside from the Draft->Final jump (what about 
> "Proposed Final Drafts"?). Personally I do not like the direct tie to 
> specific spec Drafts; personally I know sometimes I publish spec jars 
> that do not cleanly map to a Draft.  I personally prefer using Beta for 
> Drafts, CR for Proposed Final Drafts  and Final for, well, Final 
> Drafts.  We'll have to see how that works itself out though.
> 
> Anyway, any issues/concerns with duplicating these historical artifacts?
> 
> [1] I am thinking of duplicating rather than "relocating" since I am not 
> sure how well tools handle relocated artifacts in general.  In fact I 
> think tools (Maven itself included) simply fail to resolve the relocated 
> artifact.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev