On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Daniel Rall wrote:
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:16:43 -0800
> From: Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: property naming (Re: cvs commit: jakarta-commons/digester
> build.properties.sample)
>
> "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm likewise ok with switching the build.xml and build.properties.sample
> > defaults in Commons to ${lib.repo} style, if that's what people want --
> > just don't mess up my ability to override the locations of each individual
> > JAR file :-).
>
> I wouldn't dream of it -- I often need to do the same.
>
Would making this switch (changing build.properties.sample, and the
defaults in build.xml to ${lib.repo} based) be sufficient to make it
Maven-friendly?
For concreteness, let's consider the BeanUtils build.properties.sample.
The current file has (stripping comments out):
commons-collections.home=../collections/dist
commons-collections.jar=${commons-collections.home}/commons-collections.jar
commons-logging.home=../logging/dist
commons-logging.jar=${commons-logging.home}/commons-logging.jar
junit.home=/usr/local/junit3.7
junit.jar=${junit.home}/junit.jar
So, the proposal would be to change this to the following:
commons-collections.jar=${lib.repo}/commons-collections.jar
commons-logging.jar=${lib.repo}/commons-logging.jar
junit.jar=${lib.repo}/junit.jar
right? You would rely on the user to define their own lib.repo property
someplace if they are using this approach.
As long as everyone follows the convention that every JAR file is
represented by a property of the same name, it would seem like we can have
our cake and eat it too.
Craig
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
