--- Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do we have to force users to version things? I think we need to
> assume that perhaps not
> everyone will like our model. I'd prefer to let them choose rather
> than be dogmatic about
> versioning. Just because we like Maven and what it does for use
> doesn't mean we need to impose it
> on the user as well.
>
> Just my 2c.
Even if we do not want to impose on the user, we need to find a
place to put them in m2 repo. G can convert them to 0-NOVERSION or
something similar transparently.
Thanks
Anita
>
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
> > Why do we need unversioned jars?
> >
> > Couldn't we just provide a command line repository tool to help
> users install jars into the repository with proper names and
> versions?
> >
> > or if you like automate the execution of that tool, with a drop
> folder, where jars would be "deployed" into the repository
> automatically? Under the covers it would just use the command line
> repository tool.
> >
> > --jason
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:32:19
> > To:[email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Dependencies on jars in 1.1 and beyond
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
