geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: Dependencies on jars in 1.1 and beyond
Date Thu, 06 Apr 2006 03:36:30 GMT
I concur.

We need consider how much Maven we are imposing on our users.

anita kulshreshtha wrote:
> 
> --- 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