Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
On Mar 29, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: For what it's worth, Jason's proposal sounds reasonable to me*. But I don't really fancy changing all the current names either. :) I don't really want to change them (ie the work)... but I feel very strong about getting rid of that version muck in the artifactId. * Well, I can't say that 1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT made sense at first glance, but the 1.1MR3-1 followed by 1.1MR3-2 seems clear. Ya, seems weird at first, but I was just mapping David's example, which was for a SNAPSHOT ;-) --jason On 3/29/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:06 AM, David Jencks wrote: > artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec > version=1.0-SNAPSHOT (IIRC, but its' value is irrelevant) > groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs > > the spec version is 1.1MR3 > > It follows the agreed upon conventions for geronimo spec naming. I think we should reconsider the convention. And use the artifacts version to contain *all* of the version information. Since the current convention's version is mostly irrelevant anyways, I suggest that we use the spec's version + revision number (counter) as the version. That makes the above look like: artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment-spec groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs version=1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT And when released the version would be: version=1.1MR3-1 This indicates the spec version and a revision count for how many update/iterations we have applied to it. When its time to make a new revision then we'd have: version=1.1MR3-2 And when the spec version changes to say 1.2, then we'd have: version=1.2-1 IMO this is *much* more natural and allows us to use the Maven dependencyManagement section to manage all version information effectively for child modules. --jason
Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
For what it's worth, Jason's proposal sounds reasonable to me*. But I don't really fancy changing all the current names either. :) Thanks, Aaron * Well, I can't say that 1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT made sense at first glance, but the 1.1MR3-1 followed by 1.1MR3-2 seems clear. On 3/29/07, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:06 AM, David Jencks wrote: > artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec > version=1.0-SNAPSHOT (IIRC, but its' value is irrelevant) > groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs > > the spec version is 1.1MR3 > > It follows the agreed upon conventions for geronimo spec naming. I think we should reconsider the convention. And use the artifacts version to contain *all* of the version information. Since the current convention's version is mostly irrelevant anyways, I suggest that we use the spec's version + revision number (counter) as the version. That makes the above look like: artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment-spec groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs version=1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT And when released the version would be: version=1.1MR3-1 This indicates the spec version and a revision count for how many update/iterations we have applied to it. When its time to make a new revision then we'd have: version=1.1MR3-2 And when the spec version changes to say 1.2, then we'd have: version=1.2-1 IMO this is *much* more natural and allows us to use the Maven dependencyManagement section to manage all version information effectively for child modules. --jason
Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:06 AM, David Jencks wrote: artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec version=1.0-SNAPSHOT (IIRC, but its' value is irrelevant) groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs the spec version is 1.1MR3 It follows the agreed upon conventions for geronimo spec naming. I think we should reconsider the convention. And use the artifacts version to contain *all* of the version information. Since the current convention's version is mostly irrelevant anyways, I suggest that we use the spec's version + revision number (counter) as the version. That makes the above look like: artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment-spec groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs version=1.1MR3-1-SNAPSHOT And when released the version would be: version=1.1MR3-1 This indicates the spec version and a revision count for how many update/iterations we have applied to it. When its time to make a new revision then we'd have: version=1.1MR3-2 And when the spec version changes to say 1.2, then we'd have: version=1.2-1 IMO this is *much* more natural and allows us to use the Maven dependencyManagement section to manage all version information effectively for child modules. --jason
Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
This is not our version, its the version of the spec. Its still a version number in an artifactId... regardless of who's version it is. The problem with this is that when you go to change versions you have to go update a bunch of poms to fix their artifactId instead of simply updating one dependency in a dependencyManagement section. Because we put version numbers in artifactIds we've given ourselves a lot more maintenance work when it comes time to rev specs and because of this we have made it far to easy to missing them and get modules out of sync. IIRC we had a big discussion about the best spec naming convention and decided this was it. So because of that its not something that can be changed? I really disagree with this practice. It really only make *more* maintenance work and increases the chances of something getting out of sync. Its far to easy to end up with several different versions of the same spec in a project because the normal maven version resolution can't figure out which one to use because of the version information encoded in artifact ids. Despite our best intentions, we often end up releasing corrections to spec jars we've published. Can you suggest a different naming convention that will clearly and unambiguously show both the spec version and the geronimo version of a spec jar? Or do you think one of these is unnecessary? I think that all relevant information can be encoded in the artifacts version. And I think that the geronimo version is mostly irrelevant, its basically a revision of the sun version, so I would just put a counter on the end of the sun version: - 1.0-1 This helps do away with inconsistencies which we have now, with picking 1.1 or 2.0 or 1.0m2 or whatever... just keep incrementing the revision when there are changes. Some real examples: ---> (w/o version in artifactId): geronimo-j2ee-management_1.1_spec-1.0-M1.jar -> geronimo-j2ee- management-spec-1.1-1.jar geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec-1.0.jar -> geronimo-j2ee-management- spec-1.0-1.jar geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec-1.0.1.jar -> geronimo-j2ee- management-spec-1.0-2.jar geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec-1.1.jar -> geronimo-j2ee-management- spec-1.0-3.jar As you can probably tell, I think this is a very good practice. I hate it when someone says they depend on "servlet.jar" and I have to open the spec jar up and try to figure out if whoever generated it bothered to include any information at all about which spec version they implemented. Well, lucky for you w/maven the version information is encoded in the jar file names by default. So its quite easy to just use the "version" of an artifact to contain all of the versioning details and you will end up with an artifact with that information in the filename. --jason
Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec version=1.0-SNAPSHOT (IIRC, but its' value is irrelevant) groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs the spec version is 1.1MR3 It follows the agreed upon conventions for geronimo spec naming. thanks david jencks On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:30 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: Matt Hogstrom wrote: What is the alternate proposal? I suspect it should follow the more normal convention of "name of what it is" followed by the version identifier. For specs, the name of the spec artifact frequently contains a version identifier for the level of the spec. For example the javamail specs have names such as this: geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec-1.3 This indicates that this is an implementation of the javamail 1.3.1 specification, and the Geronimo version level is 1.3. So, what's the version level vs. specification level of the above artifact? Is this an implementation of the "1.1MR3" leve of the javaee deployment spec? Then it is missing its version identifier all together. It should be something like geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec-1.0 Or is this the MR3 version of the javaee deployment spec version 1.1? Then this should be geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1_spec-MR3 Or, is the version identifier actually the full 1.1_MR3, in which case it should be geronimo-javaee-deployment_spec-1.1MR3 In all cases, the version level of the artifact is the last element of the artifact name. Rick On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds... this is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This is a *very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness? --jason
Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
This is not our version, its the version of the spec. IIRC we had a big discussion about the best spec naming convention and decided this was it. Despite our best intentions, we often end up releasing corrections to spec jars we've published. Can you suggest a different naming convention that will clearly and unambiguously show both the spec version and the geronimo version of a spec jar? Or do you think one of these is unnecessary? As you can probably tell, I think this is a very good practice. I hate it when someone says they depend on "servlet.jar" and I have to open the spec jar up and try to figure out if whoever generated it bothered to include any information at all about which spec version they implemented. thanks david jencks On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds... this is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This is a *very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness? --jason
Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
That's my understanding ... you are so much more articulate than I :) On Mar 29, 2007, at 7:30 AM, Rick McGuire wrote: Matt Hogstrom wrote: What is the alternate proposal? I suspect it should follow the more normal convention of "name of what it is" followed by the version identifier. For specs, the name of the spec artifact frequently contains a version identifier for the level of the spec. For example the javamail specs have names such as this: geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec-1.3 This indicates that this is an implementation of the javamail 1.3.1 specification, and the Geronimo version level is 1.3. So, what's the version level vs. specification level of the above artifact? Is this an implementation of the "1.1MR3" leve of the javaee deployment spec? Then it is missing its version identifier all together. It should be something like geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec-1.0 Or is this the MR3 version of the javaee deployment spec version 1.1? Then this should be geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1_spec-MR3 Or, is the version identifier actually the full 1.1_MR3, in which case it should be geronimo-javaee-deployment_spec-1.1MR3 In all cases, the version level of the artifact is the last element of the artifact name. Rick On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds... this is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This is a *very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness? --jason
Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
Matt Hogstrom wrote: What is the alternate proposal? I suspect it should follow the more normal convention of "name of what it is" followed by the version identifier. For specs, the name of the spec artifact frequently contains a version identifier for the level of the spec. For example the javamail specs have names such as this: geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec-1.3 This indicates that this is an implementation of the javamail 1.3.1 specification, and the Geronimo version level is 1.3. So, what's the version level vs. specification level of the above artifact? Is this an implementation of the "1.1MR3" leve of the javaee deployment spec? Then it is missing its version identifier all together. It should be something like geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec-1.0 Or is this the MR3 version of the javaee deployment spec version 1.1? Then this should be geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1_spec-MR3 Or, is the version identifier actually the full 1.1_MR3, in which case it should be geronimo-javaee-deployment_spec-1.1MR3 In all cases, the version level of the artifact is the last element of the artifact name. Rick On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds... this is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This is a *very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness? --jason
Re: What is the deal with geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
What is the alternate proposal? On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote: I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds... this is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This is a *very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness? --jason
