On Monday 29 May 2006 15:11, Enrique Rodriguez wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > On Monday 29 May 2006 14:31, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> >> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> >>> On Friday 26 May 2006 20:55, Richard S. Hall wrote:
> >>>> I was wondering if it would be better to have:
> >>>>
> >>>> * pom.groupId = "org.apache.felix"
> >>>> * pom.artifactId = "scr"
> >>>>
> >>>> Thus, the symbolic name would be:
> >>>>
> >>>> * ${pom.groupId} + "." + ${pom.artifactId}
> >>>
> >>> So, the symbolic name == the concatenated group.artifact... How about
> >>> the Jar file name?? Is that getting the symbolic name + version ??
> >>
> >> Personally, I would rather have it be artifactId + version because the
> >> JAR filenames are way too long currently.
> >
> > And you don't see a problem with "scr-1.0.0.jar" ending up in potential
> > naming conflict??
> >
> > Personally, I have little preference. Eclipse uses FQDN_version.jar, and
> > there seems to be some reason behind that.
>
> My preference would be the longer "symbolic name + version" to avoid
> naming conflicts.
Well, looking closer at the Maven Release plugin, and I think we have an
issue;
It seems that it will only deploy the artifact (jar) to the artifact
repository server under the canonical naming and do not follow <finalName> in
the POM.
This means that we WILL end up with a Jar file name == <artifactId>, no matter
what, in the repository.
Any suggestions on how we should deal with Maven vs Eclipse naming?? Do we
need to care?
Cheers
Niclas
