artfifactId=geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec
version=1.0-SNAPSHOT (IIRC, but its' value is irrelevant)
groupId=org.apache.geronimo.specs
the spec version is 1.1MR3
It follows the agreed upon conventions for geronimo spec naming.
thanks
david jencks
On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:30 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
What is the alternate proposal?
I suspect it should follow the more normal convention of "name of
what it is" followed by the version identifier. For specs, the
name of the spec artifact frequently contains a version identifier
for the level of the spec. For example the javamail specs have
names such as this:
geronimo-javamail_1.3.1_spec-1.3
This indicates that this is an implementation of the javamail 1.3.1
specification, and the Geronimo version level is 1.3.
So, what's the version level vs. specification level of the above
artifact? Is this an implementation of the "1.1MR3" leve of the
javaee deployment spec? Then it is missing its version identifier
all together. It should be something like
geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1MR3_spec-1.0
Or is this the MR3 version of the javaee deployment spec version
1.1? Then this should be
geronimo-javaee-deployment_1.1_spec-MR3
Or, is the version identifier actually the full 1.1_MR3, in which
case it should be
geronimo-javaee-deployment_spec-1.1MR3
In all cases, the version level of the artifact is the last element
of the artifact name.
Rick
On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:02 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I really hate that we have version information in artifactIds...
this is a huge PITA when the version needs to be changed. This
is a *very* bad practice. Can we please stop this madness?
--jason
