Matt Hogstrom wrote:
What is the alternate proposal?
I suspect it should follow the more normal convention of "name of what
it is" followed by the version identifier. For specs, the name of the
spec artifact frequently contains a version identifier for the level of
the spec. For example the javamail specs have names such as this:
geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec-1.3
This indicates that this is an implementation of the javamail 1.3.1
specification, and the Geronimo version level is 1.3.
So, what's the version level vs. specification level of the above
artifact? Is this an implementation of the "1.1MR3" leve of the javaee
deployment spec? Then it is missing its version identifier all
together. It should be something like
geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec-1.0
Or is this the MR3 version of the javaee deployment spec version 1.1?
Then this should be
geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1_spec-MR3
Or, is the version identifier actually the full 1.1_MR3, in which case
it should be
geronimo-javaee-deployment_spec-1.1MR3
In all cases, the version level of the artifact is the last element of
the artifact name.
Rick
On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds... this
is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This is a
*very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness?
--jason
