I actually consider this an unnecessary restriction. You should be able to specify dependencies without forcing a naming convention where version numbers are applied. You can use the .properties files to get round this but you lose the inheritance benefits , I believe (is this changing in later versions) Flexibility is important.
Regards Stan -----Original Message----- From: Rafal Krzewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 10:04 AM To: Maven Users List Subject: Re: / /OREF:CPT95AB9 Project>Dependecies Newbie question [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Is the following snippet a valid dependency? > > <dependency> > <groupId>sailing-schedules</groupId> > <jar>SailingSchedulesUtils</jar> > </dependency> > > For this dependency, I will not be providing an artifact version. > So I wish to define the jar file name that resides in > $MAVEN_REP/sailing-schedules/jars/ named SailingSchedulesUtils.jar > as apose to something like this: In Maven, every artifact in the repository has a version. Trying to circumvert that will give you more headache that it is worth. Certain artifact are have their versions removed when they are copied out of the repository, but this is really an uncommon case. OTOH project dependencies always specify a version. Your options where are: just give your artifact an arbitrary version tag (1.0 seems a nice choice), or use the special tag SNAPSHOT. R. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
