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

[Ryan Campbell]

Well, removing the versioned jars will break the maven builds depending
on this module, such as security, with more to come.  Maven is expecting
the jars to have the version info in them.

 

________________________________

From: jboss-development-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:jboss-development-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Scott M
Stark
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 10:28 AM
To: JBoss.org development list
Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Re: Version numbers in library filenames - Bad

 

I don't want both as this just requires that only maven can be used to
get around having to update all derived artifacts (classpaths, docs,
wikis, installer, ...). I know Ruel said inclusion of the version in the
artifact was a big discussion item, but unless maven is your world its
just a pain in the ass as it propagates version info everywhere.

Ryan Campbell wrote: 

We will want both, correct?  versionless jars for non-maven, versioned
for maven?

 

________________________________

From: jboss-development-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:jboss-development-bounces at 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
		  
		      

 
  

 

 



________________________________



 
_______________________________________________
jboss-development mailing list
jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development
  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jboss-development/attachments/20060921/78cb0bd2/attachment.html