geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:39:04 GMT

On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>> I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will
>> hopefully be sooner rather than later.
>
> Too late.  For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the
> plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2.  I've been copying JARs around by
> hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this.  There are more
> people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to
> recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard
> to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity).
>
>> If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should
>> setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
>
> OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or
> "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g.,
> geronimo-kernel?

I think it should use "geronimo"  I think otherwise we will get into  
trouble later on when transitive dependencies become available.  If  
we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built jars accessed  
through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems.

david jencks
>
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
>
>> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1
>> >> and M2
>> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different.   
>> IIUC, we
>> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
>> >
>> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
>> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support
>> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
>> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID  
>> when they
>> > update to Geronimo 1.2?
>> >
>> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with  
>> dependencies on
>> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
>> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
>> >
>> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1
>> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1  
>> Group
>> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2
>> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
>> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >     Aaron
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message