lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tatu Saloranta <t...@hypermall.net>
Subject Re: two versioning problems with Lucene
Date Wed, 08 Dec 2004 04:31:09 GMT
On Tuesday 07 December 2004 18:53, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2004, at 7:42 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
...
> JAR manifests, while certainly not leveraged this way by most, were
> designed to contain versioning information.
...
> I'm merely discussing the options.  We've had the version information
> in the manifest already and was wondering why that isn't good enough.
> You've certainly given some reasons why you feel it is not good enough.
>
> What do others think?

To me manifest-based approach has the benefit that it's the actual standard 
way of including version information, and has been available at least since 
JDK 1.2. Having dummy version class seems more like a hack to me; and 
something that automated tools would be less likely to be able to use 
(manifest-based one should be something that any jar-aware tool should know 
how to use), as they'd need to either guess name (possibly iterating over all 
the classes in a jar), or know specific location for specic jars.

However, if practical problems make manifest-based approach less attractive an 
option, version class may is probably ok too.

I guess it all comes down to actual existing use cases that real users have, 
if any; and how well/badly approaches work for them.

Just my 2c,

-+ Tatu +-


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message