Do we need to support this scenario? It seems far fetched to have
both a mattsjar.jar and a mattsjar-1.0.jar available.
As for unversioned jars, I think we need to decide how we want to
handle these in the repository. I see two issues that we need to
address: where do we put the jars physically in the server, and how
to we treat these jars in the server?
For the first, I was thinking we could just let users dump
unversioned jars in the root of the repository dir. The the server
would treat them as belonging to the unspecified (default) group and
have a version of 0.0.0-0. I don't think having extra jars in the
root of the repo will hurt the maven code, but we do have some weird
side effects of the making the jar version 0.0.0-0. What if the user
puts the mattsjar-1.0.jar in the root directory? It will have name
"mattsjar-1.0" and version "0.0.0-0". We could decide to attempt to
parse the version out of the jar, but that will not work reliably as
people put jars in with poorly formed names like mattsjar1.0.jar or
mattsjar-jdk-1.4.jar.
How do you think we should handle this?
-dain
On Apr 5, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Yes, I agree that the assumption would be a non-versioned jar would
be considered version 0.0. But I haven't thought of a way yet to
support both versioned and unversioned jars when calling out the
dependency without a schema change.
For example, suppose the repo contains both mattsjar.jar and
mattsjar-1.0.jar. If I want the latest version of a jar in
Geronimo 1.1 I just omit the version number from the dependency.
No version number = the latest version number. So, that means that
we can't use the lack of a version number to mean we have a
dependency on the unversioned jar. Short of a change in the schema,
I'm not sure how to support both versioned and unversioned jars
with an optional version element.
I hate to open this issue up again now .... but I think we need to
consider this if we want to support unversioned jars (which I think
would make the life a bit easier for our users).
Joe
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I think an implicit Version of 0.0 might be reasonable for jars
that do not follow Maven conventions. Personally I think forcing
everyone to rename their jars is a bit intrusive as not everyone
would want / need to do this.
How about this:
mattsjar.jar would be implicitly mattsjar-0.0.jar without the
usewr having to change a thing.
Thoughts?
Matt
Joe Bohn wrote:
I have a situation where I need to make several web modules
dependent upon a large number of jars. I'd like to add the jars
to the Geronimo repo and add the dependencies into the plans for
the web modules. However, most of the jars don't follow the maven
naming convention because the names don't include a version (and
I'd rather not rename all the jars).
I know that there are changes being included in 1.1 to make the
version in a reference optional. However, I doubt that it is
possible to reference a jar in the repo that doesn't contain any
version. Just thought I should ask in case it really is
possible. I could see where this might be something users would
like when they have picked up jars from various places which may
or may not contain a version in the jar name.
If it *is* possible to have a non-versioned jar in the repo ...
how do we differentiate in geronimo 1.1 between a dependency on a
non-versioned jar versus a dependency on the latest version of a
jar (in case both are present).
Thanks for the help,
Joe
--
Joe Bohn
joe.bohn at earthlink.net
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he
cannot lose." -- Jim Elliot
