[jboss-dev] Javaee Spec Jars

[Paul Gier]

Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> On Friday 22 January 2010 13:01:05 Paul Gier wrote:
>> There was some discussion about naming conventions and svn structure for
>>  the javaee api spec projects this morning.  There is also more info in
>>  jira [1]. Here is the plan at this point.
>>
>> GroupId: org.jboss.spec.<sun groupId>
>> ArtifactId: <spec name>_<spec version>_spec
>> Version: Standard OSGI versions starting with 1.0.0
>>
>> For example:
>> <dependency>
>>    <groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.servlet</groupId>
>>    <artifactId>servlet-api_2.5_spec</artifactId>
>>    <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version>
>> </dependency>
>>
>> The structure in svn will look similar to the structure that the geronimo
>> project uses for their spec jars [2].  Meaning that each spec version will
>>  have a separate trunk and a separate release cycle.
>>
> 
> -1
> 
> The API should be maintained by their implementing projects. It is up to the 
> project where the code is maintained.
> 
> I want full control over the JCA API, hence moved the development of the JCA 
> 1.6 API to my project. The reasons for this were that is a real PITA to do 600 
> small releases of the API project while the specification was being developed.
> 
> "But after the spec have been released..." you may say - but no. I still want 
> full control over the release cycle, revisions update and so on. In my case 
> I'll enhance the API document once we hit the Beta and CR stage in project - 
> so there will continue to be a lot of updates. And doing a possible once a 
> month release of the API project will be an unnecessary step in the release 
> process.
> 
> The project will release the API under its own Maven artifact using the 
> project group id - as the JCA container has a life besides AS.
> 
> This case can easily be solved by having javaee depend on svn:external to 
> other projects if the lead decides to maintain the API code there.
> 
> Then rebrand the group id / artifact using a pom.xml in the javaee project.
>  
> Best regards,
>  Jesper
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development


Just to be clear the "-1" is only referring to moving spec sources to a single 
place in svn right?  And the rest you are ok with?

I was imagining keeping the sources in one place because it seems like better 
organization to group them together.  You could still have full control of the 
release lifecycle no matter where it is in svn.  I don't understand why you 
would have to do "600 small releases", why can't you use a snapshot while you 
are developing it?