On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:37:25AM -0700, Craig Russell wrote:
Hi Brian,
How about the artifact apache-jdo-incubating, and the current jar and pom
scheme:
jars/jdo2-query-SNAPSHOT.jar
jars/jdo2-query-20050805.150654.jar
poms/jdo2-query-SNAPSHOT.pom
poms/jdo2-query-20050805.150654.pom
And so forth for the 10 projects. It seems that we want to keep the
current sub-project names (we finally like them I think) and if we need to
add "incubating" to the name, fine by me.
The sub-projects already include the jdo1 or jdo2 as part of the name,
which is important. And having the version number SNAPSHOT is good.
Craig
I was wondering why you need to include the version in the artifact id?
This will become a annoyance in the future with Maven 2 and the other tool
that has support for transitive dependencies[1]. In Maven 2 you can have
a dependency on artifact A and Maven will look at A's POM and figure out
that A depends on X and Y and include those for you.
This sounds like a fine feature and I don't see the issue with JDO1 and JDO2. A project will choose which jar to build against and maven will do the right thing.
This is true because of intrinsic differences between the two jars. An application built against JDO 1 will need the JDO 1 jar files, and won't work with JDO 2. We have implemented source compatibility but binary compatibility turned out to be not practical. So once you choose JDO 2, you need to depend on the JDO 2 jar and the JDO 1 jar is worthless.
smime.p7s