geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul McMahan" <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r485477 - /geronimo/server/trunk/pom.xml
Date Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:53:52 GMT
On 12/11/06, Jason Dillon <> wrote:
> But why do we want to use "jetty5" and then "jetty6" all in the same
> branch?
> I don't think the version should be here.
> Actually I don't think that we need a version for the jee5 stuff
> either.  It should be jee, or probably javaee, adding the version
> just means that every release we will have to change the name of the
> module and reconfigure everything.  There was j2ee before, which was
> effectively the same as jee, it was not j2ee14, which would be the
> same as the jee5 that we have now.  I don't think there is a plan to
> support more than one version of teh java enterprise edition per G
> server release, therefor the addition of spec version to our modules
> is unneeded and adds extra complexity which we should lean away from.

For the tc6 integration I used "jee5" in the assembly ids because the
jetty assemblies in trunk already used it.  I certainly don't mind if
anyone wants to change them.

> Same thing with jetty/tomcat integration... I don't think we want to
> (or plan to) support more than one version of these per G server
> release, so the version here in the assembly id just complicates
> usage.  Meaning when jetty7 is out, then not only do you have to
> configure the assembly config with the new artifactId, you also have
> to go configure everyone who is using that assembly to use the new
> id, that rather negates some of the purpose of that id... its an
> alias... saying give me the G server that has jetty.

I agree with you but I thought this was more or less hashed out last
week in this thread:
The consensus appeared to me that the tomcat and jetty artifactIds
should include the version numbers so I made the change, although it
was with some trepidation because personally I prefer to keep version
numbers out of the artifactIds.  At this point I think we are very
close to tagging 2.0-M1 but maybe there is still time to change it if
you feel strongly.

> Blah... I'm just trying to keep build configuration complexity in
> check... but I'm getting a bit tired of trying :-\

I think we all sincerely appreciate what you're trying to do and
realize that getting these seemingly trivial things right will matter
a great deal in the long run.  So don't give up on us :-)

Best wishes,

View raw message