geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <rick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:30:10 GMT
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> What is the alternate proposal?
I suspect it should follow the more normal convention of "name of what 
it is" followed by the version identifier.  For specs, the name of the 
spec artifact frequently contains a version identifier for the level of 
the spec.  For example the javamail specs have names such as this:

   geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec-1.3

This indicates that this is an implementation of the javamail 1.3.1 
specification, and the Geronimo version level is 1.3.  

So, what's the version level vs. specification level of the above 
artifact?  Is this an implementation of the "1.1MR3" leve of the javaee 
deployment spec?  Then it is missing its version identifier all 
together.  It should be something like

   geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec-1.0

Or is this the MR3 version of the javaee deployment spec version 1.1?  
Then this should be

   geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1_spec-MR3

Or, is the version identifier actually the full 1.1_MR3, in which case 
it should be

   geronimo-javaee-deployment_spec-1.1MR3

In all cases, the version level of the artifact is the last element of 
the artifact name.

Rick

>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds... this 
>> is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed.  This is a 
>> *very* bad practice.  Can we please stop this madness?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message