John, Did you include "Better Builds with Maven" in your documentation search? If not, you can download the book here:
http://www.mergere.com/m2book_download.jsp I haven't looked into it myself, but from what I understand it covers alot about Maven that was previously only captured within e-mail threads. Ian It's better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not Ian D. Stewart Appl Dev Analyst-Advisory, DCS Automation JPMorganChase Global Technology Infrastructure Phone: (614) 244-2564 Pager: (888) 260-0078 John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] om> To dev@geronimo.apache.org 05/30/2006 11:47 cc PM Subject Re: Repository version precedence Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] he.org Joe Bohn wrote: > Am I the only one concerned about this? > I am also concerned, just been a bit busy to respond. See comments inline below. > I think this is an important issue for our users. They won't have the > luxury to wait for a completely new Geronimo image to fix a problem > with an embedded component. They will also face these issues with > their own versioned application modules. I would appreciate your input. > > Thanks, > Joe > > > Joe Bohn wrote: >> I'm trying to get my head around the way that we make a version >> selection when multiple versions of a package are available. This >> will be important as users need to include different versions of >> packages beyond what geronimo bundles or if they need to override a >> package with a local version. >> I agree with David Jencks that we should use the same rules as Maven and work with the Maven project if there is something we need from Maven that it doesn't currently provide. There isn't much official documentation on the maven site regarding version handing. Most of the documentation related to versioning I have found on mailing lists and confluence: * http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=113633603700001&r=1&w=2 " - indicates that version support in maven may be enhanced in Maven 2.1. * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Extending+Maven+2.0+Dependencies ( also accessible from the the "Extending Maven 2.0 Dependencies" link on http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Maven+2.1+Design+Documents . * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Dependency+Mediation+and+Conflict+Resolution * http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=113144703400002&r=1&w=2 >> I was working with the tomcat jars and so I was looking for ways to >> drop in a modified version of the jars and have them picked up >> without removing the 5.5.15 versions. Here are the items that I >> tried and which was chosen when compared to 5.5.15 >> >> 1) 5.5.15.1 >> - Apparently any version with more than 2 dots is considered invalid >> and so the entire version is considered to be a qualifier (with a >> null for the major, minor incrementalVersion, and build - basically >> treated as 0.0.0-"5.5.15.1"). Any valid version is considered newer. >> - 5.5.15 is chosen over 5.5.15.1 >> - 5.5.10 is chosen over 5.5.15.1 Hmm, I noticed we already have dependency JARs with four numbers in it (more than 2 dots) such as the Derby JARs , e.g. 10.1.1.0 . I wonder how many JARs out there could have four or more numbers considering the maven documentation does not currently mention any restriction. >> 2) 5.5.15-1 >> - The "-" is used to specify a qualifier or buildnumber. Since the >> value after the dash was numeric, it was considered to be a >> buildnumber. It appears that a build number is always considered >> newer than a package without a buildnumber. >> - 5.5.15-1 is chosen over 5.5.15 >> >> 3) 5.5.15-01 >> - The code (Version.java) treats the leading "0" as a special case. >> This makes the last part a qualifier rather than a build number. Any >> qualified version is considered to be lower than a non-qualified >> version (such as with -SNAPSHOT). Anybody know why this special >> check for "0" is in there? >> - 5.5.15 is chosen over 5.5.15-01 AFAIK, the version code was taken from Maven, so might be worth asking the Maven project. >> >> 4) 5.5.15-alpha >> - If the portion following the "-" starts with an alphabetic >> character then this last portion is considered a qualifier. Once >> again, the qualified release is considered older than the same >> version non-qualified. >> - 5.5.15 is chosen over 5.5.15-alpha >> >> >> First, we need to document this behavior very clearly for users that >> need to replace packages we ship (or their own packages included in >> the repo). >> >> Second, I would like to propose some changes: >> - IMO a qualified release should generally be considered *newer* >> than a non-qualified release. I think SNAPSHOT would be the only >> exception. Right now we treat that exception as the rule for all >> qualifiers. I think we should add specific code for "SNAPSHOT" and >> have all other qualified releases take precedence over a >> non-qualified release. I can imagine users wanting to add >> myjar-1.1-patch1.jar to replace myjar-1.1.jar. >> - I think we should treat a third "." to be the logical equivalent >> of a "-" in the version. Most users would expect 5.5.15.1 to be >> major version 5, minor version 5, incremental version 15, >> build/rev/patch/whatever 1 and consider this to be newer than 5.5.15. >> See #1 above for how we really treat 3 dots. Providing 5.5.15-1 >> gives substantially different results than providing 5.5.15.1 which >> is not intuitive. >> See comment above regarding Derby's versioning. Need to discuss any enhancements with Maven project to ensure we remain compatible. >> Joe >> >> >
