geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:05:20 GMT
I agree it should use "geronimo", since that is the groupId used for  
the bulk of the m1 build.

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

--jason


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