geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:10:47 GMT
On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> I agree it should use "geronimo", since that is the groupId used for
> the bulk of the m1 build.

OK.

> IMO it would be very confusing to deploy these artifacts anywhere, or
> expect people to install them by hand with a different groupId.

Copy bad, check.  Never want to see them deployed anywhere, I'm
confused -- they are deployed to
http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/geronimo/jars/ already.

Thanks,
    Aaron


> On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> >
> > 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