geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From anita kulshreshtha <a_kuls...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Dependencies on jars in 1.1 and beyond
Date Thu, 06 Apr 2006 01:06:41 GMT


--- Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:

> Why do we have to force users to version things?  I think we need to
> assume that perhaps not 
> everyone will like our model.  I'd prefer to let them choose rather
> than be dogmatic about 
> versioning.  Just because we like Maven and what it does for use
> doesn't mean we need to impose it 
> on the user as well.
> 
> Just my 2c.

     Even if we do not want to impose on the user, we need to find a
place to put them in m2 repo. G can convert them to 0-NOVERSION or
something similar transparently.

Thanks
Anita
> 
> 
> 
> Jason Dillon wrote:
> > Why do we need unversioned jars?
> > 
> > Couldn't we just provide a command line repository tool to help
> users install jars into the repository with proper names and
> versions?
> > 
> > or if you like automate the execution of that tool, with a drop
> folder, where jars would be "deployed" into the repository
> automatically?  Under the covers it would just use the command line
> repository tool. 
> > 
> > --jason
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
> > Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:32:19 
> > To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Dependencies on jars in 1.1 and beyond
> > 
> > Do we need to support this scenario?  It seems far fetched to have 
> 
> > both a mattsjar.jar and a mattsjar-1.0.jar available.
> > 
> > As for unversioned jars, I think we need to decide how we want to  
> > handle these in the repository.  I see two issues that we need to  
> > address: where do we put the jars physically in the server, and how
>  
> > to we treat these jars in the server?
> > 
> > For the first, I was thinking we could just let users dump  
> > unversioned jars in the root of the repository dir.  The the server
>  
> > would treat them as belonging to the unspecified (default) group
> and  
> > have a version of 0.0.0-0.  I don't think having extra jars in the 
> 
> > root of the repo will hurt the maven code, but we do have some
> weird  
> > side effects of the making the jar version 0.0.0-0.  What if the
> user  
> > puts the mattsjar-1.0.jar in the root directory?  It will have name
>  
> > "mattsjar-1.0" and version "0.0.0-0".  We could decide to attempt
> to  
> > parse the version out of the jar, but that will not work reliably
> as  
> > people put jars in with poorly formed names like mattsjar1.0.jar or
>  
> > mattsjar-jdk-1.4.jar.
> > 
> > How do you think we should handle this?
> > 
> > -dain
> > 
> > On Apr 5, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Yes, I agree that the assumption would be a non-versioned jar would
>  
> >>be considered version 0.0.   But I haven't thought of a way yet to 
> 
> >>support both versioned and unversioned jars when calling out the  
> >>dependency without a schema change.
> >>
> >>For example, suppose the repo contains both mattsjar.jar and  
> >>mattsjar-1.0.jar.  If I want the latest version of a jar in  
> >>Geronimo 1.1 I just omit the version number from the dependency.   
> >>No version number = the latest version number.  So, that means that
>  
> >>we can't use the lack of a version number to mean we have a  
> >>dependency on the unversioned jar. Short of a change in the schema,
>  
> >>I'm not sure how to support both versioned and unversioned jars  
> >>with an optional version element.
> >>
> >>I hate to open this issue up again now .... but I think we need to 
> 
> >>consider this if we want to support unversioned jars (which I think
>  
> >>would make the life a bit easier for our users).
> >>
> >>Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>
> >>>I think an implicit Version of 0.0 might be reasonable for jars  
> >>>that do not follow Maven conventions.  Personally I think forcing 
> 
> >>>everyone to rename their jars is a bit intrusive as not everyone  
> >>>would want / need to do this.
> >>>How about this:
> >>>mattsjar.jar would be implicitly mattsjar-0.0.jar without the  
> >>>usewr having to change a thing.
> >>>Thoughts?
> >>>Matt
> >>>Joe Bohn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I have a situation where I need to make several web modules  
> >>>>dependent upon a large number of jars.  I'd like to add the jars 
> 
> >>>>to the Geronimo repo and add the dependencies into the plans for 
> 
> >>>>the web modules. However, most of the jars don't follow the maven
>  
> >>>>naming convention because the names don't include a version (and 
> 
> >>>>I'd rather not rename all the jars).
> >>>>
> >>>>I know that there are changes being included in 1.1 to make the  
> >>>>version in a reference optional.  However, I doubt that it is  
> >>>>possible to reference a jar in the repo that doesn't contain any 
> 
> >>>>version.  Just thought I should ask in case it really is  
> >>>>possible.  I could see where this might be something users would 
> 
> >>>>like when they have picked up jars from various places which may 
> 
> >>>>or may not contain a version in the jar name.
> >>>>
> >>>>If it *is* possible to have a non-versioned jar in the repo ...  
> >>>>how do we differentiate in geronimo 1.1 between a dependency on a
>  
> >>>>non-versioned jar versus a dependency on the latest version of a 
> 
> >>>>jar (in case both are present).
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks for the help,
> >>>>Joe
> >>>>
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Joe Bohn
> >>joe.bohn at earthlink.net
> >>
> >>"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he  
> >>cannot lose."   -- Jim Elliot
> > 
> > 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Mime
View raw message