On Wednesday 31 May 2006 15:46, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> What you're describing here is the default Maven repository layout. With
> your own "osgi" layout you should be able to name your artifacts just
> like you want. Check out [1] for how to translate an artifact to a path.
Well, the interface is all good and so on, but I don't se how that really fits
into the discussion... Please enlighten me.
1. Maven do not like to have the groupId part of the filename. Equinox think
it is a bit of a "must".
2. Maven insist of putting a dash between the artifactId and version in the
filename, Equinox insist on an underscore.
These are by themselves nothing to worry or care about and very much personal
preference et cetera.
3. Some people (Jeff) expresses a strong desire that the same filenames are
used no matter where it is being used.
4. Jeff also insist on being able to put jars in a single directory, claiming
management agents get an easier job.
5. Some people (Richard) likes to have short filenames.
6. Equinox is troubled by dashes in filenames, making it more difficult to
use Maven produced bundles in Equinox.
7. I think OBR client should work straight against Maven repository.
Did I forget something??
So, in my PoV the "easiest" would be to;
* have short artifactIds
* filename created by [groupId].[artifactId]_[version].[qualifier]
(dot, dash or underscroe in front of qualifier?)
* OBR client can do searches (like Jeff suggested) but also work with
groupId/artifactId and download straight from Maven repositories, incl
the local cache management.
* Equinox needs no change.
* Felix changes directory names and artifactIds.
Is this at all possible??
AFAICT, I can't make Maven understand that a particular group uses a different
repository layout, and if it can manage a different layout "per repository
host" then we might be in a position of something useful. So can it?
Cheers
Niclas
