On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Micah Hainline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So can we find a way to suit both sides? > > - keep the tools we have running > > and > > - move to a unique id > > Not having a standard way to reference Eclipse artifacts is a continuing > source of pain. > > It seems to me that the groupId serves quite well as an identifier for the > source of an artifact, and it is a nice way to provide a sandbox in the > repository in which to play. > The artifactId is a nice way for the provider of the artifacts to identify > their artifacts. I think that these two goals are still nicely fulfilled > when we have something like the following: > > <groupId>org.eclipse.core</groupId> > <artifactId>org.eclipse.core.runtime</artifactId> > > The artifact comes from the Eclipse Core project, and they happen to have > have called it org.eclipse.core.runtime. Within maven we can use both of > these pieces of information together in order to ensure a unique match, even > though we could probably get away with just using the artifactId. I don't > see how it hurts us to use both though. It will be a serious source of > confusion to Eclipse plugin developers if we start telling them that in order > to include the plugins org.eclipse.ui and org.eclipse.core.runtime in a > pom.xml they need to write the following: > > <dependency> > <groupId>org.eclipse</groupId> > <artifactId>ui</artifactId> > <version>3.3.1</version> > </dependency> > > <dependency> > <groupId>org.eclipse.core</groupId> > <artifactId>runtime</artifactId> > <version>3.3.1</version> > </dependency> > > And giving them artifactIds with dashes instead of periods just seems... > spiteful. I mean, we have trouble enough just remembering which plugins > we're trying to get, don't make us guess what to call them, or pull out a > "Maven Naming Conventions for Eclipse" manual to figure it out. It seems > like what we've got with eclipse:make-artifacts works pretty good, if we > could all just agree on it. A two-segment id would work fine too, if folks > have a preference for that. All that really matters is that we get some > consistency.
On the users lists I asked about seeding the repo with 3.2.2 eclipse jars. There is some talk about doing so and the naming convention that would be used. Jason knows who he has been talking to in the Eclipse world. (p.s the Dash vs Dot is worse because as per the conflict resolution the name without the dash is newer, thus 3.2.2 is considered newer than 3.2.2-M2_20080803 and your build fails since it can't find a matching version in the range [3.2.2,4.0.0) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
