Hi, Been meaning to reply to that other thread for some time...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:15:34 -0600, Adam R. B. Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Basically, the first one I looked at either needed more Gump <depends in the > descriptor (or changes to 'jar ids', see next) that lead to Maven jar > overrides. BTW: The 'gump' goal for a Maven project takes this information > from the POM and creates the correct Gump descriptor. Have you tried that? My main worry is that there may be more information in the gump descriptor than the maven plugin will create. Is anyone prepared to try "maven gump" on excalibur and tell me what is missing? I don't really have a desire to learn any more about gump to be honest, but am happy to help out. Niclas showed that Magic's descriptor lets you put gump id's against every dependency. We can do that in Maven without changing the schema if we need an interim solution while gump moves to a more robust ID namespace. But its only going to be helpful if the maven gump goal is being used to generate the descriptor, so that needs to be attempted first. > did mention groupId and artifactId -- whereas Gump has 'jar id' (which we > map only to artifact id). As I understand it Maven 1.0 is still ok w/ > artifact id, it isn't yet requiring groupId, that is coming soon. When it We won't "require" groupId in jar overrides for backwards compatibility, but it needs to be an option to give it, because there are already conflicts in the artifactId namespace as is shown in excalibur. > The main problem we have is that Gump jar ids are not sufficiently unique, > so we've decided to (bit by bit) change ours to match theirs. > > When I get time I'll look at these closer. Thanks Adam. Cheers, Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
