"Kyle Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 28/10/2003 03:53:09 AM:
> > No, the version of the JAR will always remain in the name of the JAR. > > Simply for the reason of sheer readability. You're not guessing when > > you look at the file. > > I'll grant you that having the version number in the name of the JAR > is more readable. That being said, I don't think there's any need > to guess when looking at a JAR without a version number in the name > - you can easily check the manifest file to get version information. As long as it exists. In many, many jars, the manifest doesn't have this information. > > Ultimately your if all your processes are not tied to the source of > > project information you are going to have problems. > ... > > Maybe you're not ready to use Maven to it's full extent but > > there are ways that you can consistently generate all your artifacts and > > deployments using the information provided in the POMs. > > This seems a relatively short-sighted stance to me. We can tie as > many of our internal processes to the POM as possible, but that > still doesn't cover integration with other tools. Until WebLogic > begins using the POM to determine the name of the JAR file to > deploy, those problems are going to exist. Maven needs to have the > flexibility to deal with those problems. > > My inquiry isn't just about convenience. It's about flexibility and > integration with other J2EE tools that can't read information from > Maven's POM. Rather than using the version numbered jar, can you deploy an unversioned one instead? -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ Pub Key:http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/public-key.asc --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
