geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Possible problems with maven-style configIds WAS: Warning of change in configId format
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:02:21 GMT
On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 2005, at 1:58 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> I've investigated this a little bit and think it might be  too  
>>> big a lurch in a new direction for 1.0.  Here are a few of the  
>>> things that would have to change or appear to be problems:
>>> 1. constructing the configId from groupId + artifactId + version  
>>> + type.  This is pretty easy.
>>> 2. finding stuff in a repo and/or config store from the  
>>> configId.  This is fairly easy
>>> 3. Constructing the ObjectNames that include the configId in  
>>> J2EEApplication and/or J2EEModule.  This requires quoting the  
>>> configId which is a big pain and is apt to cause  difficulties  
>>> everywhere.
>>> 4. We have been using URI for the configIds internally.  I think  
>>> if we use this new format this should change.  The : character  
>>> appears to have a specific meaning in URIs and it is decidedly  
>>> different from what we are meaning by it.  We could perhaps  
>>> introduce a scheme and write
>>> configid:groupId:artifactId:version:type.  I could not tell from  
>>> a bit of research on URIs whether this is consistent with their  
>>> intended semantics.  Does it make sense to have URIs of this  
>>> form?  Should we just change our configId type to something else?
>>> At this point I think we need more discussion before we proceed  
>>> along this route.  I have some of it implemented.... please speak  
>>> up.
>> My opinion, is we don't make incompatible changes between major  
>> releases, so if we decide not to do this now, it will be harder to  
>> do it later.
>> Anyway, I see your point, so lets talk about what changes you want  
>> to implement pre-1.0?
>> If you are changing the configuration ids, I'd like to make sure  
>> the format is something we can easily parse into groupId,  
>> artifactId and version.  For example, we could go with:
>> org.apache.geronimo/j2ee-server/1.0
> Should we change our dependency URIs to the same format?  I'm  
> inclined to think we should.  I would prefer to include the type  
> (car|jar) for completeness and to distinguish dependencies from  
> configIds.

I know it will make the files much longer, but I'd prefer we drop or  
deprecate support for the single line dependency declaration, which  
means we require the full format:


> So I think this format proposal takes care of (3) and (4) and I  
> already implemented (1) and (2) although with the : separator.  I'm  
> not sure if this format might cause confusion anywhere between a  
> resolvable path URI and this more abstract configId format.

It is possible.  Who will actually see it?  If it is just us geronimo  
programmers, we should document it.  If it is users, I think we  
should think about mitigating the impact.

>> Are there any other changes of note?
> Using the plugins rather than tons of jelly is a big change, but  
> I'm not sure what else might be a change "of note".  Also for a  
> while now the plugin-based build has been extracting dependency  
> info from project.xml rather than requiring you to duplicate it.

Cool.  I was really asking about changes to the internal stuff or to  
the plans themselves.


View raw message