On Nov 13, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 13/11/2010 16:09, Ralph Goers a écrit : >> This is a great post. Personally, I think the need to do this is completely >> caused by Maven and I've been discussing this with them for years. I will >> be writing up a proposal on the Maven wiki which would eliminate the need to >> keep renaming packages and artifacts. Instead, artifacts would contain >> additional metadata they could use to describe things like the version(s) of >> the API that they support, configuration versions, and other attributes that >> might affect the user of the artifact. Then users of the artifact, in >> addition to specifying the groupId and artifactId would specify the >> attributes and their versions that they require. Maven could then use this >> information to insure that only a single version of the artifact is present >> and that it meets the requirements of all the projects that list it as a >> dependency. If multiple projects specify the artifact with different >> metadata that can't be resolved by any available version of the artifact >> then the build would fail. > > I thought the name change would allow safe mixing of version, each part > being able to retrieve it's own version ? As components do not catch up > on version at the same time, this seemed an interesting feature. Having > the build fail in this case would mandate either tightly synchronized > components or using an OSGi framework to isolate components.
That is a good point. I suppose it is probably easier to do it this way then actually doing the work to insure the artifact maintains backward compatibility. If I had thought about it I probably could have taken the list of items where VFS broke compatibility and just addressed them instead of renaming the package. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org