answering several mails here:
> id=org.eclipse.core.eclipse-core-resources
how can I programatically map this back to the OSGi id ?
you must be able to map osgi<->maven
> I totally agree that tools which rely on artifactId-uniqueness are
> technically broken, but is it right to choose a programmatic mapping
> which increases the severity of this breakage?
it doesnt increase anything, you were not using eclipse artifacts
before, because they were not in the repo
it's most likely that you will use the eclipse bundles for osgi
development than for webapp, so it's worse to accommodate the broken
war plugin than break the osgi plugins
> Eclipse is the first project that introduces this artifactId conflict issue,
not really, if i create an artifact with a very commons artifactId
like "util" i'm in the same trouble
On Nov 28, 2007 9:14 PM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your right : the packaging plugins may provide a optional workaround to
> conflicting artifacts names.
> I've created MWAR-132 for this.
>
> Eclipse is the first project that introduces this artifactId conflict issue,
> but many other could appear in future, so the plugins must be upgraded asap
> to provide a workaround.
>
> Nico.
>
>
> 2007/11/28, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2007 7:09 PM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 2007/11/28, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > plugins (war, ear,...) should support and even make it the default, to
> > > > package the jars using the full group+arifact id, because using just
> > > > the artifactId has limitations. What happens now if you have 2 jars
> > > > with same artifactId and version in a war? they overwrite each other
> > > >
> > > >
> > > This would be great in an ideal world.
> > > Lets consider the required changes :
> > >
> > > - war plugin to create required WEB-INF/lib
> > > - jar/ear/ejb plugin to create the correct MANIFEST entries
> > > - assembly plugin to bundle dependencies
> > >
> > > Adn now, consider how many builds could be broken by such changes...
> >
> > for those plugins it can be an option, doesnt need to be the default
> > right away. What i'm saying is that it's the path forward and new
> > stuff like the eclipse bundles need to be aware of it. The OSGi tools,
> > like felix bundle plugin already compose the bundle symbolic name with
> > group+artifact.
> >
> > in any case those plugins are already broken if there are two
> > artifacts with same artifactid and version (eg util-1.0.jar)
> >
> > Now imagine that the eclipse plugins get the name from the artifactId
> > only, what about the thousands of artifacts that are already in the
> > repo? org.apache.commons-logging/commons-logging should be
> > commons-logging in an osgi bundle or org.apache.commons-logging???
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> > No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
> > -- The Princess Bride
> >
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
