On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:09:02AM +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Tryvge, > > Trygve Laugstøl wrote on Friday, July 08, 2005 10:02 AM: > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 09:53:19AM +0200, Jörg Schaible wrote: > [snip] > >> As long as the libraries are not incompatible to themselves, it > >> should be possible to use both. This might not be the use case for an > >> application, but building a framework supporting those different > >> versions. We are in the same situation in the Nano camp. > > > > Maven has a strong concept of artifacts. A artifact is > > identified by the group id and the artifact id and it can have > > multiple versions. > > > > If a project has version 1 and version 2 artifacts that can > > exists in the same classpath at the same time they they are > > basically two different artifacts and should have different > > artifact ids. In the case of hibernate the artifacts should > > then be named something like this: > > > > | Group id | Artifact id | Version > > | org.sf.hibernate | hibernate2 | 2.0 > > | org.sf.hibernate | hibernate3 | 3.0 > > Well, this is exactly what we did in M1 locally by introducing a > different artifactId and using the override mechanism to point to a > project relative version managed by the scm. But this is no longer > possible in M2 and I am looking for a solution. The problem is, that > there are quite some artifacts existing, where this situation applies. > Hibernate is just one example.
You can still do the same with Maven 2 by naming the artifacs differently and putting them in the repository. I really don't see the big difference. What we really should do is to get upstream to name their artifacts properly. -- Trygve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
