Yes, I agree that the assumption would be a non-versioned jar would be
considered version 0.0. But I haven't thought of a way yet to support
both versioned and unversioned jars when calling out the dependency
without a schema change.
For example, suppose the repo contains both mattsjar.jar
Do we need to support this scenario? It seems far fetched to have
both a mattsjar.jar and a mattsjar-1.0.jar available.
As for unversioned jars, I think we need to decide how we want to
handle these in the repository. I see two issues that we need to
address: where do we put the jars
I can't claim that the scenario will be very common. However, for
completeness, it seems like we need to address the possibility if we
support unversioned jars. Actually, to be clear, I think we need to
speak in terms of a maven version versus a non-maven version. My
real concern is that we
Why do we need unversioned jars?
Couldn't we just provide a command line repository tool to help users install
jars into the repository with proper names and versions?
or if you like automate the execution of that tool, with a drop folder, where
jars would be deployed into the repository
On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
1) where do we put the jars physically?
- I'm not sure I follow the need to add the jars to the root of the
repo. My assumption was that we would continue to follow the
groupID/jar organization. Since the groupID doesn't actually get
included
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Apr 5, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
1) where do we put the jars physically?
- I'm not sure I follow the need to add the jars to the root of the
repo. My assumption was that we would continue to follow the
groupID/jar organization. Since the groupID
Why do we have to force users to version things? I think we need to assume that perhaps not
everyone will like our model. I'd prefer to let them choose rather than be dogmatic about
versioning. Just because we like Maven and what it does for use doesn't mean we need to impose it
on the user
--- Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do we have to force users to version things? I think we need to
assume that perhaps not
everyone will like our model. I'd prefer to let them choose rather
than be dogmatic about
versioning. Just because we like Maven and what it does for
I concur.
We need consider how much Maven we are imposing on our users.
anita kulshreshtha wrote:
--- Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do we have to force users to version things? I think we need to
assume that perhaps not
everyone will like our model. I'd prefer to let them
I have a situation where I need to make several web modules dependent
upon a large number of jars. I'd like to add the jars to the Geronimo
repo and add the dependencies into the plans for the web modules.
However, most of the jars don't follow the maven naming convention
because the names
I think an implicit Version of 0.0 might be reasonable for jars that do not follow Maven
conventions. Personally I think forcing everyone to rename their jars is a bit intrusive as not
everyone would want / need to do this.
How about this:
mattsjar.jar would be implicitly mattsjar-0.0.jar
11 matches
Mail list logo
