On Thursday 01 June 2006 10:48, Jeff McAffer wrote: > I'm assuming that by "Eclipse being overkill" you mean the Eclipse > filenaming scheme outlined earlier? I
Nah... I meant, that I must use Eclipse IDE or I can't develop OSGi systems. Eclipse meaning the entire thing, that I personally am not very fond of as a development tool, although I think Eclipse as an RCP for my own applications make total sense. > Yup this is a nice abstraction. As a point of interest, how does the > layout get inferred from the information given above? That is, how is it > known that "artifact:jar:log4j/log4j#1.2.8" is a Maven repo path? artifact: is by Transit's definition an artifact available on a repository host. The configuration in Transit of the repository host (base URL), defines how the layout of that host is organized, hence both Maven2, Maven1, Eclipse and others are supported. Trygve have highlighted that Maven2 also supports this now. > If you happen to have 3 or 4 different sources for > bundles that go into your product (OBR, Felix Commons, Equinox, ...) then > you may end up shipping several different layouts. The general approach is in Maven camps the opposite. Any needed artifact gets published to a repository. Last time I checked 13000 something Jars was available in Mavens central repository, then plus many projects having their own to fill some remaining gaps. There can't be many Java OSS projects that is not present... There is indeed a huge investment in standardizing this issue, and Eclipse is the significant exception, rather than the rule, at least from my angle of view. > I keep coming back to the Java package name analogy. Java needed a > simple, robust naming scheme for classes. Since domain names are > universally understood, globally managed and unambiguous they make a fine > choice. Well, if you bring the analogy full circle, you will quickly discover that Maven follows this (now) more than you want to think, and Eclipse less than you argue; Java Package == Maven Group Java Class == Maven Artifact. Java did not say that the Filename of the class must be FQDN, but instead stored hierarchically on the file system according to the package name. Uhhhhh.... Maybe a quick look at http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/apache/ gives you a hint (the many non hierarchical items in the root are unfortunate legacy) You just choose to require that it has to be on the filename, and creating a non-existing analogy. I DO agree with the principal of formalized names. I don not agree that filename is the only way to achieve this. > Anyway, I've likely said the same thing more than enough times now... Yep, me too.... ;o) Everybody else have fallen asleep. Cheers Niclas
