Thanks Ian,
I registered for it yesterday, but am still waiting to receive the email
with the download link. Hoping it will fill in some holes in the
documentation.
John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
