On 7/11/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get into trouble later on when transitive dependencies become available. If we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built jars accessed through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems.
I'm OK with this if that's what most people prefer, but I hope everyone on the thread will chip in with their preferred group ID. However, I don't see what the problem is that you're referring to. Let's say you have a project using M1-built Geronimo 1.1 JARs, and you later change your project to use the M1-built Geronimo 1.1.1 JARs and then still later the M2-built Geronimo 1.2 JARs. On that last step, your build will bring down POMs and some transitive dependencies in addition to the JARs explicitly listed. What's the problem and where does it happen? Thanks, Aaron
>> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: >> >> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 >> >> and M2 >> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. >> IIUC, we >> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. >> > >> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 >> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support >> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the >> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID >> when they >> > update to Geronimo 1.2? >> > >> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with >> dependencies on >> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, >> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. >> > >> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1 >> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 >> Group >> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2 >> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a >> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Aaron >> >>
