geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <joe.b...@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: Dependencies on jars in 1.1 and beyond
Date Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:45:37 GMT
I can't claim that the scenario will be very common.  However, for 
completeness, it seems like we need to address the possibility if we 
support unversioned jars.  Actually, to be clear, I think we need to 
speak in terms of a "maven version" versus a "non-maven version".  My 
real concern is that we shouldn't force users to conform to the maven 
version convention if they already have jars that they are using which 
either don't include a version at all or don't conform to the maven syntax.

In addition to the 2 issues you mentioned I was trying to get at a 3rd 
issue:

1) where do we put the jars physically?
- I'm not sure I follow the need to add the jars to the root of the 
repo.  My assumption was that we would continue to follow the 
groupID/jar organization.  Since the groupID doesn't actually get 
included in the physical file name, I don't think there is a problem 
from a user perspective if we stick to the group/jars structure (if 
maven can handle jars under a group that aren't versioned .... not sure 
if this is case or not).  Since my main concern was to avoid the need to 
rename the jars I don't think the group is a big deal.

2) How do we treat these jars in the server?
- Within the server I think it's fair to treat these jars as if they 
were maven version 0.0.0-0.  In this case the non-maven version jar 
would be used in the case that the dependency omits the version and 
there is no maven version of the jar available.  In fact, I think this 
is good because it gives users a way to gradually move from the 
non-maven version jars to the maven convention gradually as they upgrade 
each jar.  Without changing any dependencies they will automatically 
pick up the newer version.   Of course, that assumes that the jar didn't 
already follow a non-maven version scheme (such as _1_1_0) in which case 
they may have to change the artifact portion of their dependencies as 
they convert to maven versions.

3) How do we specify dependencies on non-versioned jars?
- Even though I like the approach presented in the previous question is 
still makes it does take away some control from the user.  With maven 
versions a user a choose to either ignore the version or use a specific 
version.  However, with this approach there is no way to use a specific 
non-versioned jar if there is a newer versioned one available.  One way 
to solve this odd case would be to have a keyword value for the version 
field such as "null" which would mean that the dependency can only be 
fulfilled by a the non-maven versioned jar.  If no such jar exists we 
could then look use the latest maven version available.  However, if 
it's useful to use a lower maven versioned jar then I think it would 
also be useful to use a lower non-maven versioned jar.

I hope that last point is clear even if we decide that it isn't a 
scenario we choose to support.

Joe


Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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

Mime
View raw message