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: Roadmap
Date Mon, 21 May 2007 18:44:39 GMT
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Richard S. Hall <heavy@ungoverned.org> wrote:
>> I don't care how it is stored in the repository. The issue I have is
>> that the generated artifact in target/ has a name...I don't want to
>> manually have to change the name after doing "mvn clean
>> install"...however, it is probably better if the names can be the same,
>> since it would avoid confusion since it would be more difficult to tell
>> whether a JAR file downloaded from a Maven repo was the same as a JAR
>> file we were re-distributing.
> I guess you are not copying them by hand, right? you probably use the
> assembly to generate the package with all the bundles. At that time is
> when they could be renamed.

Currently, this stuff gets copied into the 'main' subproject via its pom 
file using the antrun plugin; this is pretty ugly, but functional. The 
name of the artifacts in their target/ directories is hard coded in the 
main/pom.xml. Clearly, the rename could happen here, but that is not 
what I would want, since the name in the source target/ directory would 
be different.

Take the shell bundle for example, it would be called shell-1.0.0.jar in 
its target/ directory, but would be called 
org.apache.felix.shell-1.0.0.jar in the main/bundle/ directory.

Speaking for myself, I would prefer to have the name of the artifact in 
target/ to be the actual name I want to use. I shouldn't have to do 
renaming when I want to distribute those artifacts.

> Precisely this will help to identify where jars come from, having
> org.apache.maven.core-1.0.jar is easier to identify than just
> core-1.0.jar.

Definitely, which is why we want the full name for our JAR files, but we 
weren't able to get it easily if we equate the artifactId with the short 

In summary, the dilemma we had was that everyone wanted the artifactId 
to be the short name and the JAR file to be the long name. But if we 
made the artifactId the short name, then we also got the short name for 
the JAR.

>> Good. So, do you recommend that we use maven-bundle-plugin for the
>> artifactId of the bundle plugin?
> yes, not required, but more in line with all the other plugins

Ok, I have just changed its artifactId back to "maven-bundle-plugin".

-> richard

View raw message