Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll get rid of it and cut a new version of the plugin. Thanks. Are there any still needing mapping that need be kept? I don't know. We usually have something like tpl-project for Apache projects, so log4j went from jakarta-log4j to logging-log4j. I assume for Maven it would be just log4j. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think, personally, that Gump and Maven should start talking about creating a more serious infrastructure and joining forces from the POM point of view. I think we are already doing that with Brett helping out a lot 8-) In the end we'll find situations where we are unable to map project names one-to-one to Maven and then we will need to not only declare the arifact but also the group on the jar individually. Until then, we should try to get as close to each other as possible - and if the naming will map to whatever the repository effort comes up with, even better. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maven gump goal (was Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names)
I'll get rid of it and cut a new version of the plugin. Are there any still needing mapping that need be kept? BTW: If you are making tweaks, would you mind moving the nag element out if projects and up onto the module? That way if we get a CVS|SVN error folks would be notified. If this isn't right (although I think a POM only has one project) then perhaps add something to the module, and also override (or duplicate) on the project, whatever is easier. Hmm ... I know what I ought be doing, a JIRA entry. Ok, done. This is minor, no pressure. regards, Adam - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are having all sort of issues because maven and gump use different naming schemes. Now, why don't we just adopt their naming conventions and live peacefully together from that point on? Wholeheartedly yes when it comes to jar ids. Talking about project names, I really wouldn't want to call ant jakarta-ant or cocoon xml-cocoon. But I guess I could live with this for pragmatic reasons. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
The maven repository uses ant and I guess cocoon would be used for these. Let me clarify some terminology, just so I understand: In gump there are projects, where a project id is unique globally, and there are jar ids, where jar ids are unique within project, right? So this parallels quite nicely to Maven's groupId (globally unique) and artifactId (unique within group). Now the twists :) However, I'm worried there still might be a disconnect because Maven talks about projects within a group, where Gump talks about projects being a group. eg: groupId geronimo, artifactId geronimo-clustering but the project is geronimo-clustering, and that's where the gump descriptor will be generated. Each subproject will have a descriptor. Is this what gump expects? From what I can see, it is, so that's ok. Next twist: the Apache Repository group has come up with a standard repo format, and we are working towards that in future Maven versions. groupIds are likely to be fully-qualified. ie maven - org.apache.maven (maybe even deeper) commons-collections - org.apache.commons.collections If we start migrating to different group IDs like this, will that cause any issues? I'm guessing the only thing is that it might make an ugly project name (as Stefan pointed out), so maybe gump needs to explicitly declare a groupId, different from the project id. Thoughts? This is a bit of a way off, and I don't think it really changes anything - but best to make sure. Cheers, Brett On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 09:54:16 +0200, Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are having all sort of issues because maven and gump use different naming schemes. Now, why don't we just adopt their naming conventions and live peacefully together from that point on? Wholeheartedly yes when it comes to jar ids. Talking about project names, I really wouldn't want to call ant jakarta-ant or cocoon xml-cocoon. But I guess I could live with this for pragmatic reasons. Stefan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 18:17, Brett Porter wrote: Let me clarify some terminology, just so I understand: In gump there are projects, where a project id is unique globally, and there are jar ids, where jar ids are unique within project, right? So this parallels quite nicely to Maven's groupId (globally unique) and artifactId (unique within group). Yes and perhaps no. Gump will only issue a single build command per project. That build command may create more than one artifact (Maven lingo), unlike standard Maven builds. Therefor the need for an ID of Jars within the project. Next twist: the Apache Repository group has come up with a standard repo format, and we are working towards that in future Maven versions. I think all involved should agree on the same solution, whatever that is. I personally think that the long-term goal should be that a single 'complete' model which describes everything needed for build systems, and extendible to provide additional information for different build systems. RDF is probably the best candidate for this. Then this would become a non-existent issue. If we start migrating to different group IDs like this, will that cause any issues? I think there will be some short-term pain of managing to make the changes without bringing Gump success rate back to 0%. :'( Should it be done? I don't know. What is the status of the entire Repository project? Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The maven repository uses ant and I guess cocoon would be used for these. When Niclas generated the Fulcrum descriptors it contained things like jakarta-ant, jakarta-turbine-torque, jakarta-log4j or jakarta-avalon that had to be fixed manually[1] after that. Maybe the Gump plugin needs an update, or Niclas used an old version, dunno. In gump there are projects, where a project id is unique globally, and there are jar ids, where jar ids are unique within project, right? Yes. However, I'm worried there still might be a disconnect because Maven talks about projects within a group, where Gump talks about projects being a group. eg: groupId geronimo, artifactId geronimo-clustering but the project is geronimo-clustering, and that's where the gump descriptor will be generated. Each subproject will have a descriptor. So maybe Gump projects are really more like Maven projects, except they may create multiple artifacts (if this is what Niclas said). Next twist: the Apache Repository group has come up with a standard repo format, and we are working towards that in future Maven versions. groupIds are likely to be fully-qualified. ie maven - org.apache.maven (maybe even deeper) commons-collections - org.apache.commons.collections If we start migrating to different group IDs like this, will that cause any issues? If Gump projects are like Maven projects and not groups, it shouldn't matter. I'm guessing the only thing is that it might make an ugly project name (as Stefan pointed out), so maybe gump needs to explicitly declare a groupId, different from the project id. I currently feel that we may be forced to declare artifact and group id individually on the jars we create, at least optionally. Really difficult situations arise when projects get split (jakarta-slide used to contain slide-webdavclient which has now become a separate project in Gump) or artifacts get split. This will be a problem to deal with since Gump living on the edge will have to follow such moves immediately while Maven project files can't be adapted without SNAPSHOTs being available IIUC. Stefan Footnotes: [1] http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/gump/project/jakarta-turbine-fulcrum.xml?r1=1.48r2=1.49 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
Maybe the Gump plugin needs an update, or Niclas used an old version, dunno. There's only been one version with the maven tag. I've just discovered http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/maven-plugins/gump/src/plugin-resources/maven2gump.properties which apparently maps ids to gump ids. Among other things, things like: ant=jakarta-ant Hmm... I had no idea that was there. Not exactly an elegant way to maintain a list. I'll get rid of it and cut a new version of the plugin. Are there any still needing mapping that need be kept? I currently feel that we may be forced to declare artifact and group id individually on the jars we create, at least optionally. I think this is a better way to do any compatibility mapping, if possible. For example, it would help in doing what you mentioned next: Really difficult situations arise when projects get split (jakarta-slide used to contain slide-webdavclient which has now become a separate project in Gump) or artifacts get split. This will be a problem to deal with since Gump living on the edge will have to follow such moves immediately while Maven project files can't be adapted without SNAPSHOTs being available IIUC. the options for this seem to be: - maintain the old one as a link to the new one in some way - fork the gump descriptor - old points to old code, new to new (not a migration really) - keep project same, but map projects to group/artifact Ids that can change I'm sure you guys already handle this and know the best option to take. Cheers, Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are having all sort of issues because maven and gump use different naming schemes. Now, why don't we just adopt their naming conventions and live peacefully together from that point on? Wholeheartedly yes when it comes to jar ids. Talking about project names, I really wouldn't want to call ant jakarta-ant or cocoon xml-cocoon. But I guess I could live with this for pragmatic reasons. Hmmm, yeah, that would suck. I think, personally, that Gump and Maven should start talking about creating a more serious infrastructure and joining forces from the POM point of view. What do you guys think about that? -- Stefano. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
On Thursday 14 October 2004 00:33, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: I think, personally, that Gump and Maven should start talking about creating a more serious infrastructure and joining forces from the POM point of view. What do you guys think about that? Definately... RDF, perhaps :o) Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names
We are, pretty much, we already agreed upon that -- at least for artifact ids. It is just a slow migration, changing them as we detect differences. The xerces != xerces2 is a project name. Since it is so well used it might be quite disruptive to change. I'm open to other's input on if and when/how we'd make such a change. regards, Adam - Original Message - From: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Apache Gump [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:11 AM Subject: [RT] Standardizing on Maven names We are having all sort of issues because maven and gump use different naming schemes. Now, why don't we just adopt their naming conventions and live peacefully together from that point on? -- Stefano. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
