geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Any objections to new configId format?
Date Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:11:07 GMT

On Nov 28, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I object if you can't use an "arbitrary URI" configId
> as a parentId, assuming you're using neither the assembly plugin nor
> the packaging plugin.  As in, you deploy a configuration with an
> arbitrary URI using the command-line deployer or the console deployer,
> then another one that depends on the first one.  Please make sure that
> works before you commit the changes.

I ran a section of the tck that uses other tck configurations as 
parents, and it all worked fine.

I'd like to reemphasize more specifically that this change includes the 
dependency tags, and that one effect is that you have to put jars into 
the geronimo repository according to its structure.  Yesterday someone 
said they had put a jar in the geronimo repo at foo/foo-1.0.jar.  This 
will no longer work: you will need to put the jar in the repo at 
foo/jars/foo-1.0.jar and refer to it as




IMO this is a very good thing as it allows us to change the internal 
structure of the repository without breaking applications.  e.g. we 
could use a maven 2 structured repo.

david jencks
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> On 11/28/05, David Jencks <> wrote:
>> I have a large number of changes on my machine related to the proposed
>> new configId format and I would like to commit them before they get 
>> out
>> of sync.
>> To review, it is a URI of the form
>> groupId/artifactId/version/type
>> where type is "car" for configurations.  The same format is used for
>> dependencies, although the type is "jar".  In plans, you can always 
>> use
>> the expanded form
>> <import>
>>     <groupId>foo</groupId>
>>     <type>car</type>
>>     <artifactId>bar</artifactId>
>>     <version>1.0</version>
>> </import>
>> or for dependencies
>> <dependency>
>>     <groupId>foo</groupId>
>>     <artifactId>bar</artifactId>
>>     <version>1.0</version>
>> </dependency>
>> It is definitely possible to use an arbitrary URI for a configId,
>> although I don't know how successful using an arbitrary uri for a
>> parentId will be.  While you could use the packaging plugin with a
>> configId of some other format, I don't think the assembly plugin would
>> be able to find it.
>> Are there any objections to my committing this sometime monday
>> afternoon or evening?
>> thanks
>> david jencks

View raw message