[JBoss-dev] Re: Version numbers in library filenames - Bad

[Carlo de Wolf]

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
> >   
>