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

Reply via email to