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 22:37:07 GMT
On Nov 23, 2005, at 4:14 PM, David Jencks wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>>> 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:
>> <dependency>
>>    <groupId>org.apache.geronimo</groupId>
>>    <artifactId>kernel</artifactId>
>>    <version>1.0</version>
>> </dependency>
> Look in the configs/assemblies builds.  All dependency elements are  
> generated by the plugins, and are in this format.

Very nice.  Do we can deprecate the one liner format now, or wait for  
another release?

>>> 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.
> I'm mostly wondering about jsr-77 object names.  But, we already  
> have both meaningless configId uris and, in ear module names, path  
> uris for relative position in the ear.  So I'm not sure this would  
> introduce any more confusion.

I think the name will be a bit tighter, but will still be pretty  
unreadable for users anyway.  At least we aren't making it worse :)

>>>> 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.
> Well, I'd recommend if we decide to change to this uri format that  
> the Repository implementations accept them rather than the current  
> path based uris they are accepting.


> ConfigIds in plans should all change.  Plans we supply are all (in  
> configs build) using (generated) dependencies and imports of the  
> long format already.  IMO you should be specifiying all the parents  
> using import tags anyway in the long format (this is done in  
> configs build as well (as soon as I commit the next cleanup :-)).


> I'm starting to think this is doable by 1.0.  It would be nice to  
> hear other opinions...



View raw message