geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <>
Subject Re: Possible problems with maven-style configIds WAS: Warning of change in configId format
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:46:02 GMT
On 11/23/05, Dain Sundstrom <> wrote:
> 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:

I object to doing this.  I really think most users are going to want
to give their applications short and sweet config IDs like "AppName". 
OK, yes, that means you can't use the packaging plugin to install
them, but I as a user am totally comfortable with that, and I don't
see why I should have to do something like the huge block below for
every little module I write.  P.S. I also would be opposed to needing
to specify the parentId using 4 attributes.

So I won't kick and scream too much if you change our server
components to use stuff like that in their own plans, but I will be
pretty grumpy if users are required to use that in order to write any
basic Geronimo plan containing a configId and parentId.  And since
there's no distinguishing between the elements that point to a
location in the repository and the elements that simply take an
abstract URI (another mistake IMHO but David J continues to overrule
me on this one), if you're going to be allowed to name your database
pool "MyPool" and then create an app "MyApp" with "MyPool" as a parent
or dependency, we can't insist that people use the Maven-style format.

I think this would all be a lot more palatable if we could think up a
way for a user to use a short name like "MyApp" and we use more large
and explicit naming under the covers but allow the user to do
everything with only "MyApp", but I think that might be challenging.


> <dependency>
>     <groupId>org.apache.geronimo</groupId>
>     <artifactId>kernel</artifactId>
>     <version>1.0</version>
> </dependency>
> > 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.
> -dain

View raw message