Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> "Craig R. McClanahan" wrote:
> >
> > On 4 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > - <property name="dest.jardir.jar"
> value="${dest.jardir}/${name}.jar"/>
> > > + <property name="dest.jardir.jar"
> value="${dest.jardir}/${name}-${component.version}.jar"/>
> > >
> >
> > I thought we agreed that the binary distribution directory would have
> > the version number in it, but not the JAR file name itself?
I was thinking about this on the way in to lovely Noo Yawk. Standing for 80
minutes teaches self-distraction...
I had the concern that having a version number on the jar might make support
easier. I had some serious ISP problems last week, so might have missed the
tail end of the thread. I will doublecheck on mail-archive.
However, I still think my concern if valid. In the happy event of us
getting component users that don't also happen to be jakarta committers
people who may actually use the jars in environments different than the CVS
tree :->) why not have more than one build target? The normal user
dist/jar target adds the version number and a 'developer' dist/jar target
builds w/o appending the version. That way we can have the nice build setup
where a cvs update and a build will update the developer environment w/o
having to mess with build.properties, and for a user, its easy to see what
jar is what when deployed out to webapps, apps, and whatnot.
BTW : is it possible to override the default target in build.properties?
That way the default target in the build.xml can build the 'user' targets,
and you can override for development.
geir
