Mailing-List: contact axis-dev-help@ws.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of deepalk@gmail.com designates
 74.125.92.149 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=vvuZOcJG4FYhZPygR52vyGKQywBKJ6UYQBQrCJ59cgb3gDWFZYykXi/OX0nndRIKZR
         JuXmDYMFzIwvOYvwKRAl0ZvaBdo2lpKSB8t2+pfKn6tBqOJ46A8r5X7g1mdSUE0wn+gi
         FoEviFxp9RFHv1on2QyCT5DiaFges0NY2SVjM=
Message-ID: <4A97F55E.3050008@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:18:54 -0400
From: Deepal jayasinghe <deepalk@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: axis-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Supporting hierarchical service deployment
References: <b729442d0908280205m315141b7u74e092dda7b47b4c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A97DCFC.4030708@gmail.com>
	 <9b85c45f0908280730w38a88a7eief7bcd459bcdb8f3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4A97ED94.1080206@gmail.com>
 <9b85c45f0908280757i1a36f65ele58b4daa7a5f33ea@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9b85c45f0908280757i1a36f65ele58b4daa7a5f33ea@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> The artifact name does not have to be unique with OSGi bundles. Due to
> file system limitations, you cannot place two artifacts with the same
> name in the same directory, but with OSGi you can place your artifacts
> with the same name in different directories & get them to successfully
> deploy, provided that the bundle versions are different.
Hehe, does not that mean you need to have the unique file name ? ;-)

I know we have the file system limitation (I would not consider that as
a limitation). Even in Axis2 we can tell the same story, that we do not
depend on the name of the archive but file system.  I think it is always
easy to have the version number in the file itself, it make us to
identify the bundle or file easily (no need to extract and go though the
manifest file).

>
> Anyway, I was not around when module versioning was implemented, and I
> strongly feel that trying to derive a version from an artifact is a
> "tried & failed" approach.
But most people use that approach (including you)
> Even Maven does not do that. Just take a look at the directory
> structure of a Maven repo. The folder structure reflects the artifact
> version, even though you see a number in the artifact that looks like
> a version number to a human being.
it is just data duplication. I am not in the favor of maven file
structure. And I am -1 on introducing such a thing into Axis2.
>
> So, if we are going to implement service versioning, I'd recommend
> that we go for a scheme that does not try to derive the version from
> the artifact.
I agree and +1, but not the ugly directory structure that he has introduced.

Deepal