Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> > Is there a reason why we're not placing the version number in the name of
> > the JAR. I am trying to use a central repository of JARs for building all
> > turbine projects and I know I will eventually run into a case where I need
> > to store different versions of a package in the same directory.
> >
> > I know the version informatin is in the manifest, but you can't store
> > multiple versions of packages in the same directory right now.
>
> IMHO, placing all the jars from disparate projects into a single directory
> produces a mess. Pop quiz: where does optional.jar come from? That was an
> easy one, eh? How about mail.jar? roles.jar? utils.jar? runtime.jar?
> These are real names actually in use.
Not that I think that we need a rule about this, but for jakarta
projects, it would be so nice if projects at least put the project name
on the jar filename.
ant-optional.jar
or better yet,
jakarta-ant-optional.jar
The jar name is irrelevant to java, right? It seems to only matter when
specifying them in a build.xml, or a .bat/.sh, or a CLASSPATH or
whatever.
Therefore, for projects that want to be supported by jjar, it isn't much
to ask that either they name their jar something appropos, or we do it
for them if we maintain a central repository.
>
> A better approach is to organize the jars into directories. The names of
> those directories can contain version information, etc. And separate
> README and LICENSE files...
Yes, if you are going to come and pick them up. With an automatic
repository, there is no need although it would keep things organized.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
Well done is better than well said - New England Proverb
