My understanding is that this will be done so that Geronimo can support more than one version of a third party artifact within a particular build tree, a la GERONIMO-2399. BTW, I'm holding off making any changes to the tomcat artifcatIds in trunk until this discussion winds down :-)
Best wishes, Paul On 12/7/06, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems like this will make upgrading to newer versions of projects more difficult. As the major version changes there will be changes that percolate across the geronimo modules, configs, assemblies, etc... It's not impossible to maintain by any means, but it is a little more difficult and error prone. We've already seen a little of this with jetty6 (initial jetty6 image including both jetty 5 & jetty 6 items, testsuite changes, etc...). Can you please summarize the rationale for this again and the benefits to be gained? Thanks, Joe David Jencks wrote: > I'm not sure who I've talked to about this or where but I think really > really strongly that we should include the major version number of the > projects we integrate in our artifactIds relating to those external > projects. > > A couple people have pointed out that something like jetty_6 or > geronimo-jetty6-builder is more consistent with our spec naming than > jetty6 or geronimo-jetty6-naming. > I don't really care about that, although I think the shorter tomcat6 is > perfectly clear and easier to type. > > Other stuff: > axis >> axis1 > cxf >> cxf1 > openjpa >> openjpa1 > > I think this will really reduce confusion about what is running in a > server. > > So, I'd like the tomcat modules to be renamed geronimo-tomcat6, > geronimo-tomcat6-builder, tomcat6, tomcat6-deployer. > > Can we discuss and settle this soon? > > thanks > david jencks > > > ps. I'm planning to remove the jetty[5] stuff from trunk soon.
