>there are a couple of things to note: > - version numbers in jar file names make the lives of everybody much better > the time that people composed their classpath manually should be long > gone. It is fairly easy to construct a classpath with a shell >script.
That's true, but is that something we really want to impose on our users? As a user, I don't think I would find this acceptable. >- Maven requires you to put the version in your jar file name. They enforce > this for the obvious reason: you are 99% sure which version you are running > and whether or not you might need to upgrade to a new version if one is > available. The 'only-directory contains a version number' is flawed because > I can still drop in any version of a pivot jar without even knowing that the > wrong version is in place. I have mixed feelings about Maven. My experiences with it thus far have not been good. So I'm slightly disinclined to make a change to our system simply to achieve Maven compatibility. OTOH, I understand that a lot of developers use it, so I'm very much on the fence. >- Version number in your jar name prevents classpath hell. Been there, and > never wanting to go back. A good point - but I don't see how the directory approach is any less valid for solving this particular issue.
