ok, just changed my mind. after reading all comments and looking into my needs now. I can work with with the mapping, specially because i need only one at the moment.
It is MUCH more important there is a consistent mapping! Than it is that somebody like me likes it or not. Just see a lot of work coming .... and hole bunches of backward compatibility stuff. One of the troubles i see coming for example in the maven-eclipse-plugin is convincing eclipse that a file reference to a jar in the local repository called "resources.jar" should be handled as if it is called "org.eclipse.core.resources.jar". In some cases i know it is possible in others .... Could somebody (hint-> "Carlos Sanchez") write a page on the maven site about this discussion: about the naming of artifact's and the proper handling in bundling plugin's. So next time somebody (like me) asks a question that breaks lose a discussion, we can point the page for the arguments. It can also be used as a reference for jira tasks in the various bundling plugins so that all have the same handling, share the same (activation) parameter names and share the same backward compatibility handling. Then with version 2.x.x of maven the default can be switched to the "correct" handling. Ritchie Carlos Sanchez wrote: > oh, and btw the war plugin already uses the groupId when in conflict :) > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MWAR-19 > > > On Nov 29, 2007 10:44 AM, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> answering several mails here: >> >>> id=org.eclipse.core.eclipse-core-resources >> how can I programatically map this back to the OSGi id ? >> you must be able to map osgi<->maven >> >> >>> I totally agree that tools which rely on artifactId-uniqueness are >>> technically broken, but is it right to choose a programmatic mapping >>> which increases the severity of this breakage? >> it doesnt increase anything, you were not using eclipse artifacts >> before, because they were not in the repo >> it's most likely that you will use the eclipse bundles for osgi >> development than for webapp, so it's worse to accommodate the broken >> war plugin than break the osgi plugins >> >>> Eclipse is the first project that introduces this artifactId conflict issue, >> not really, if i create an artifact with a very commons artifactId >> like "util" i'm in the same trouble >> >> >> >> On Nov 28, 2007 9:14 PM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Your right : the packaging plugins may provide a optional workaround to >>> conflicting artifacts names. >>> I've created MWAR-132 for this. >>> >>> Eclipse is the first project that introduces this artifactId conflict issue, >>> but many other could appear in future, so the plugins must be upgraded asap >>> to provide a workaround. >>> >>> Nico. >>> >>> >>> 2007/11/28, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> On Nov 28, 2007 7:09 PM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> 2007/11/28, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>>> plugins (war, ear,...) should support and even make it the default, to >>>>>> package the jars using the full group+arifact id, because using just >>>>>> the artifactId has limitations. What happens now if you have 2 jars >>>>>> with same artifactId and version in a war? they overwrite each other >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> This would be great in an ideal world. >>>>> Lets consider the required changes : >>>>> >>>>> - war plugin to create required WEB-INF/lib >>>>> - jar/ear/ejb plugin to create the correct MANIFEST entries >>>>> - assembly plugin to bundle dependencies >>>>> >>>>> Adn now, consider how many builds could be broken by such changes... >>>> for those plugins it can be an option, doesnt need to be the default >>>> right away. What i'm saying is that it's the path forward and new >>>> stuff like the eclipse bundles need to be aware of it. The OSGi tools, >>>> like felix bundle plugin already compose the bundle symbolic name with >>>> group+artifact. >>>> >>>> in any case those plugins are already broken if there are two >>>> artifacts with same artifactid and version (eg util-1.0.jar) >>>> >>>> Now imagine that the eclipse plugins get the name from the artifactId >>>> only, what about the thousands of artifacts that are already in the >>>> repo? org.apache.commons-logging/commons-logging should be >>>> commons-logging in an osgi bundle or org.apache.commons-logging??? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> I could give you my word as a Spaniard. >>>> No good. I've known too many Spaniards. >>>> -- The Princess Bride >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> >> I could give you my word as a Spaniard. >> No good. I've known too many Spaniards. >> -- The Princess Bride >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
