On Nov 23, 2005, at 4:14 PM, David Jencks wrote:
On Nov 23, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:27 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Should we change our dependency URIs to the same format? I'm
inclined to think we should. I would prefer to include the type
(car|jar) for completeness and to distinguish dependencies from
configIds.
I know it will make the files much longer, but I'd prefer we drop
or deprecate support for the single line dependency declaration,
which means we require the full format:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo</groupId>
<artifactId>kernel</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
</dependency>
Look in the configs/assemblies builds. All dependency elements are
generated by the plugins, and are in this format.
Very nice. Do we can deprecate the one liner format now, or wait for
another release?
So I think this format proposal takes care of (3) and (4) and I
already implemented (1) and (2) although with the : separator.
I'm not sure if this format might cause confusion anywhere
between a resolvable path URI and this more abstract configId
format.
It is possible. Who will actually see it? If it is just us
geronimo programmers, we should document it. If it is users, I
think we should think about mitigating the impact.
I'm mostly wondering about jsr-77 object names. But, we already
have both meaningless configId uris and, in ear module names, path
uris for relative position in the ear. So I'm not sure this would
introduce any more confusion.
I think the name will be a bit tighter, but will still be pretty
unreadable for users anyway. At least we aren't making it worse :)
Are there any other changes of note?
Using the plugins rather than tons of jelly is a big change, but
I'm not sure what else might be a change "of note". Also for a
while now the plugin-based build has been extracting dependency
info from project.xml rather than requiring you to duplicate it.
Cool. I was really asking about changes to the internal stuff or
to the plans themselves.
Well, I'd recommend if we decide to change to this uri format that
the Repository implementations accept them rather than the current
path based uris they are accepting.
+1
ConfigIds in plans should all change. Plans we supply are all (in
configs build) using (generated) dependencies and imports of the
long format already. IMO you should be specifiying all the parents
using import tags anyway in the long format (this is done in
configs build as well (as soon as I commit the next cleanup :-)).
+1
I'm starting to think this is doable by 1.0. It would be nice to
hear other opinions...
+1
-dain
