On 8/12/02 10:28 AM, "Jason van Zyl" <jason@zenplex.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 10:22, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On 8/12/02 10:16 AM, "Jason van Zyl" <jason@zenplex.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 08:33, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) You can insulate people who need dependency information from the format
>>>> of the project.xml - so you can change the project.xml format on a
>>>> per-project basis (i.e. Things can evolve rather than have to jump all at
>>>> once...) and the consumer of the repo don't need to know that.
>>>
>>> Sure, then they are just dependent on another format. What's the
>>> difference really.
>>
>> They are dependent upon a format specific to the need, a comprehensive
>> package and dependency format, rather than a format that is really meant for
>> something else, the Maven project description.
>
> That's exactly what a Maven descriptor is except that it is more
> comprehensive given that it will take into dependencies that are non-JAR
> artifacts. Because all project information changes across versions,
> including dependencies, we will use each project.xml file used for a
> release to produce the graph where JJAR puts everything in one file.
> Same thing but I believe Maven's format will be easier to manage given
> that each project maintain's its own dependencies. But something JJAR
> could use would be actually manageable using a Reactor i.e. we can
> easily sweep across each project processing each descriptor used for
> each version to produce what JJAR needs.
That's exactly what I meant - just preprocess your Maven project
descriptors. Then, if they ever change, anyone using the repo won't have to
know about it if you can keep the 'Uber descriptor' stable.
--
Geir Magnusson Jr.
Research & Development, Adeptra Inc.
geirm@adeptra.com
+1-203-247-1713
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
|