On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Phil Steitz <[email protected]> wrote: > Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:12: >> >>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>> Hi Phil, >>>> >>>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: >>>> >>>>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>>> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement" or not. >>>>>> Basically we say that dbcp 1.3 with JDBC4 will not be backward >>>>>> compatible. Then why don't we use the new artifactId for this and allow >>>>>> 1.3 with JDBC3 to be a real drop-in replacement? If somebody works with >>>>>> ranges, he might get the newer dbcp anyway and wondering about the >>>>>> incompatibility later. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore we might better do: >>>>>> >>>>>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3 >>>>>> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 >>>>> Thanks Jorg and Grzegorz. Really appreciate the feedback. It is >>>>> important that we get this right, minimizing confusion / bad impact >>>>> to maven users and making upgrades both safe and as easy as >>>>> possible. I was thinking the same way as you, Jörg, on the groupId >>>>> change for the jdbc4 version. >>>> Note, that I also changed the artifactId "dbcp vs. dbcp4" ;-) >>>> >>>> However, thinking about it, I am not sure if this is necessary and we can >>>> really keep the artifactId (your first plan). If somebody uses both >>>> artifacts (by transitive deps), his project is broken anyway. We simply >>>> have to point out in the website and README, that there are really two >>>> different commons-dbcp-1.3.jar files. Or is it too much confusion? >>> That worries ma a little bit, more for Ant than Maven users. >>> Incompatible jars with the same name in the wild is asking for >>> trouble (well, like the old days ;). >>> >>> Another option, given that we don't have to mess with relocation >>> poms, is just to use org.apache.commons:dbcp:1.3 for the jdbc4 version. >> >> Well, the point was, that such a dbcp-1.3.jar is no longer backward >> compatible to a dbcp-1.2.x.jar. Therefore I proposed the change of the >> artifactId for the JDBC4 version in first place. And here are the Maven >> users affected ;-) > > Did you miss that I cut out the "commons" from the artifactId? > > That way we have commons-dbcp-1.3.jar and dbcp-1.3.jar in the wild. > I guess I liked "dbcp" better than "commons-dbcp4" for the new > artifactId. IIUC, the only reason we have kept the "commons-" on > the relocated commons artifactIds for components moved thus far is > so the relocation poms will work. Since we are not doing that > here, we can make a clean break and use what seems to me at least a > more natural artifactId. As always, could be I am missing something.
This makes sense for people who consume the jars via maven since our groupid identifies the producer and the m2 repository is organised as that way - but oputside of maven I think retaining "commons" in the jar name (and therefore artifactId) makes better sense since it groups jars from our project together and makes it easier for people to realise the source of the jar. And I think its better to be consistent accross commons. Niall > Phil > > >> >> - Jörg >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
