Hi,
+1 for number 2 also.
i expect a 1.2 version of a lib as a compatible improvement of a 1.1
version and even maven does this when building.
Regards,
Volker
2008/9/5 Leonardo Uribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi
>
> On a previous discussion (please see):
>
> http://www.nabble.com/-myfaces-commons--discussion-about-reorganization-of-this-project-is-required!-td17692039.html
>
> It was proposed to have a layout following tomahawk way (jsf 1.1 and jsf 1.2
> living on the same trunk but having diferent artifact names for jsf 1.1 and
> 1.2 compatible versions).
>
> The reorganization was rejected, so I do not attempt to discuss it anymore.
>
> But It seems that the way of name the artifacts and put the version is not
> clear, so we need to ask the community about it.
>
> There are two proposals:
>
> 1. Diferentiate versions using the two first digits and using the same
> artifactId. This is what is right now. Example:
>
> JSF 1.1
>
> myfaces-commons-utils-1.1.0
> myfaces-converters-1.1.0
> myfaces-validators-1.1.0
>
> JSF 1.2
>
> myfaces-commons-utils-1.2.0
> myfaces-converters-1.2.0
> myfaces-validators-1.2.0
>
> Trinidad uses this way to handle it
>
> 2. change the artifactId adding something to identify the version. Example:
>
> JSF 1.1
>
> myfaces-commons-utils11-1.0.0
> myfaces-converters11-1.0.0
> myfaces-validators11-1.0.0
>
> JSF 1.2
>
> myfaces-commons-utils12-1.0.0
> myfaces-converters12-1.0.0
> myfaces-validators12-1.0.0
>
> tomahawk use this way (it has tomahawk and tomahawk12 as artifact id to
> separate versions, but follows a same release cycle and version number)
>
> Suggestions are welcome.
>
> My humble opinion is +1 for number 2 (that's one thing that I wanted on the
> previous discussion, inclusive if this is true have all code on the same
> place like tomahawk).
>
> regards
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
--
inexso - information exchange solutions GmbH
Bismarckstraße 13 | 26122 Oldenburg
Tel.: +49 441 4082 356 |
FAX: +49 441 4082 355 | www.inexso.de
