felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: [Maven Plugin] Additional fixes...
Date Wed, 31 May 2006 09:42:18 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Well, the interface is all good and so on, but I don't se how that really fits 
> into the discussion... Please enlighten me.
>   1. Maven do not like to have the groupId part of the filename. Equinox think
>      it is a bit of a "must".
>   2. Maven insist of putting a dash between the artifactId and version in the 
>      filename, Equinox insist on an underscore.
> These are by themselves nothing to worry or care about and very much personal 
> preference et cetera.
>  3. Some people (Jeff) expresses a strong desire that the same filenames are
>     used no matter where it is being used.
>  4. Jeff also insist on being able to put jars in a single directory, claiming
>     management agents get an easier job.
>  5. Some people (Richard) likes to have short filenames.

To clarify my position, I want to have short directory names in the svn 
repo, but the directory names apparently have to be named after the 
artifactId, which is currently org.apache.felix.blah..., which we 
apparently need so that we can have long JAR names. I am not against 
long JAR names, I just don't want my directories to be so long since I 
use the command line.

Conceptually, it seems like it does make sense to have groupId and 
artifactId be like:

    * groupId = org.apache.felix
    * artifactId = subproject

Since there is an implied parent-child relationship between groups and 
their artifacts. Currently, we have:

    * groupId = org.apache.felix
    * artifactId = org.apache.felix.subproject

Which seems sort of redundant (and leads to long directory names). I was 
told that we cannot disconnect artifactId from the svn directory name 
without some consequences.

Being able to have the first approach (without the redundancy and the 
short svn directory names), but with the freedom to name our resulting 
JAR files ${groupId}.${artifactId}-${version}.jar seems like it would be 
the holy grail.

>  7. I think OBR client should work straight against Maven repository.

OBR clients only work against the OBR service, however, I don't think it 
would be difficult at all to make a maven repo look like an OBR repo, 
assuming that it is a repo of bundles with the appropriate metadata.

> So, in my PoV the "easiest" would be to;
>  * have short artifactIds
>  * filename created by [groupId].[artifactId]_[version].[qualifier]
>    (dot, dash or underscroe in front of qualifier?)

For the most part, I agree. I don't care about "_" or "-"...

>  * OBR client can do searches (like Jeff suggested) but also work with
>    groupId/artifactId and download straight from Maven repositories, incl
>    the local cache management.
>  * Equinox needs no change.
>  * Felix changes directory names and artifactIds.
> Is this at all possible??

Good question.

-> richard

View raw message