On 1/22/14, 2:43 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> Phil Steitz wrote: >> >>> On 1/22/14, 1:58 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>> Hi Gilles, >>>> >>>> Gilles wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> It's a convention; the "component" part could be the component's name >>>>> i.e. Commons Math could give "commons-math" as a base name; then the >>>>> artefacts (archives and JAR files) would be differentiated solely on >>>>> the version number: >>>>> commons-math-3.3.tar.gz >>>>> commons-math-3.3.jar >>>>> >>>>> The current convention seems that the base name is derived from the >>>>> top-level package name (which could indeed be mildly confusing, hence >>>>> this thread): >>>>> commons-math3-3.3.jar >>>>> >>>>> But since the top-level package is renamed with each major version, it >>>>> is redundant to have the major number present both in the name and in >>>>> the version number. >>>> Old discussion! Please stop and search the archives, it's a technical >>>> requirement. Both names for package and artifactId must be changed. >>> Did we discuss before departing from the file name / meta-data / >>> package correspondence? That is what is being advocated here - >>> changing *file* names to break with the standard convention. Not >>> sure I agree with it (especially not for the jars); but it is not >>> the same as internal maven artifactIDs and package names. >> Gilles is *obviously* talking about the jar files. > OK, to be precise he is obviously *also* talking about the jars. > > However, even for the two artifacts in the download area: The finalName > parameter will only influence the name of those two artifacts in the local > target directory. It has no relevance for the name of the artifact that will > be deployed into the remote repository (here: the staging area). A release > manager will therefore not only have to move the files into the download > area, but also has to rename them again to the "proper" names.
Ugh. So for my education, there is a hard linkage between the deployed artifact file names and the deployment locations? I get that the group/artifactIDs should drive repo directory structure, but I did not know that it was impossible to override the file names. In any case, I agree with you that we should not depart from convention on the jar names. Phil > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
