[jboss-dev-forums] [Design of JBoss Build System] - Re: JBossAS CR1 build plan

[pgier]

"scott.stark at jboss.org" wrote : "pgier" wrote : 
  |   | (http://snapshots.jboss.org/maven2/org/jboss/jbossas/jboss-as-system/5.0.0-SNAPSHOT/)
  |   | See build 8 for an example of the client jar.
  |   | 
  |   | So while the names are not the same, I tried to follow a pattern in the naming conventions in order to make it easier to find the matching jars.  Will this work?
  |   | 
  |   | I can change jboss-as-system to jboss-system (and follow the pattern for the rest of the artifacts) if it helps.  I just chose that convention because I thought it would make it easier to identify app server component vs. mc components, aop components, etc.
  |   | 
  | Whatever names we choose, we need to have both builds using them. I'd rather see jbossas as the common prefix. There is still the problem of jars in configurations. These should not have versions in the artifact names so that we have to change config files, jar manifests, docs, etc. We can drop the version in the jar in the local target, but not from the repository without writing a new repository plugin. What can we do about this disconnection in naming conventions?
  | 

It's not too difficult to write the jars without the version in the name.  Then when they are deployed, they have the version.  I think this will be clear as far as where jars are coming from.

However one problem is that I'm currently using a snapshot version of the maven assembly plugin.  If I can't get an official release of the plugin on apache, then I can just for a version for us internally.

I'll plan to go through the jars and make this change early next week.




View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4128013#4128013

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4128013