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 21:12:11 GMT
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:


Are there any other changes of note?


View raw message