geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <>
Subject Re: Possible problems with maven-style configIds WAS: Warning of change in configId format
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2005 21:27:54 GMT

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.

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.
> 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.

david jencks

> -dain

View raw message