On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 01:54:15PM -0700, Craig Russell wrote: > Hi Trygve, > On Aug 5, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Trygve Laugstøl wrote: > > 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. > > Now this become a issue as you can't have both JDO 1 and JDO 2 in your > class path at the same time > > 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.
Ok, sorry, I was assuming that they where going to be binary compatible. I'm just wondering why was it hard to be binary compatible? As far as I can tall all changes are binary compatible, but of course I don't have the full overview. > > because if A depends on "jdo1" and B depend on > "jdo2" I will end up with both of them in my class path. If they both > had > the artifact id "jdo" Maven's versioning mediation will take care of > selecting one or the other based on the current strategy (the strategy > by > default is to pick the version specified 'neareast' the currently > building > project). > > I'm not sure whether this is an issue based on the discussion above. Any > project will be using either JDO 1 or JDO 2 and there's no decision for > maven to make. And all projects that share a class path have to choose the > same one. Yes it was. Thanks for your clarifications and for getting the JDO snapshots to the repository will for sure make my life better. -- Trygve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
