commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [Math] Name vs "artefactId" (Was: [jira] [Commented] (MATH-1057) ...)
Date Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:18:28 GMT
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 14:54:49 -0800, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 1/22/14, 2:43 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>> On 1/22/14, 1:58 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>>> Hi Gilles,
>>>>> Gilles wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> It's a convention; the "component" part could be the component's

>>>>>> name
>>>>>> i.e. Commons Math could give "commons-math" as a base name; then

>>>>>> the
>>>>>> artefacts (archives and JAR files) would be differentiated 
>>>>>> solely on
>>>>>> the version number:
>>>>>>    commons-math-3.3.tar.gz
>>>>>>    commons-math-3.3.jar
>>>>>> The current convention seems that the base name is derived from 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> top-level package name (which could indeed be mildly confusing, 
>>>>>> hence
>>>>>> this thread):
>>>>>>    commons-math3-3.3.jar
>>>>>> But since the top-level package is renamed with each major 
>>>>>> version, it
>>>>>> is redundant to have the major number present both in the name 
>>>>>> and in
>>>>>> the version number.
>>>>> Old discussion! Please stop and search the archives, it's a 
>>>>> technical
>>>>> requirement. Both names for package and artifactId must be 
>>>>> changed.

I did not mention modifying anything related to either the package name 
the "artefactId".

It is neither obvious, nor so widely known it seems, that the file 
absolutely must contain the "artefactId".

Looking at an URL like
I don't immediately see what would be the problem if the JAR file were
rather than

Now, that there is a _convention_ to create such names by concatenating 
"artefactId" and the version number, I can readily accept.


>> [...]

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message