incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam Lally" <ala...@alum.rpi.edu>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve release Apache UIMA 2.2.2-incubating
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:44:45 GMT
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:
> Thilo Goetz wrote:
> > > 3) IMO its better if the jars include the version number - which they
> > > do for the maven repo, but not the ones in the binary distro
> > >
> >
> > I personally agree with you, but we had a long discussion about
> > this and the "no version numbers in jar names" faction carried
> > the day.  I believe the main reason is that it makes upgrading
> > to a new version easier, or switching between versions for
> > testing purposes.
> >
>  We actually have a Jira issue that may address this, for the next release:
>
>  http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-857
>

Among the UIMA committers, I'm the main proponent of the "no version
numbers in jar names".  Jar file names that change in each version
have always driven me crazy because they force users to update their
classpaths when they upgrade their UIMA version.  A lot of tools just
don't handle this well - Eclipse is one example, AFAIK it doesn't give
you any way to use wildcards in classpath so as to pick up any
version.

I don't see UIMA-857 as a solution, because UIMA is an embeddable
component and people want to take our jar files and add them to their
classpaths using typical Java means.  I personally wouldn't be happy
relying on some special UIMA mechanism for finding its jar files.

  -Adam

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message