"Kyle Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 29/10/2003 02:00:56 AM:
> > Rather than using the version numbered jar, can you deploy an
> > unversioned one instead?
>
> Very likely, but then (if I understand correctly) wouldn't I lose
> the ability to grab the JAR from a repository?
Not that I can
> A massive number of abstractions cropping up isn't going to be
> something that is going to happen in Maven.
I'm not looking for a massive number of abstractions; on the contrary, I think
abstractions should be very clear, and relatively simple.
That being said, well-placed abstractions go a
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 10:00, Kyle Adams wrote:
> I think a lot of these intricacies could be avoided if Maven offered an extensible
> mechanism (for example, an abstract VersionExtractor, a la Ruper) for extracting
> version info--from the file name, from a directory name, from the manifest file,
> Rather than using the version numbered jar, can you deploy an
> unversioned one instead?
Very likely, but then (if I understand correctly) wouldn't I lose the ability to grab
the JAR from a repository?
Most of what I've seen up till now has involved using the repository for "plain
vanilla" J
"Kyle Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 28/10/2003 03:53:09 AM:
> > No, the version of the JAR will always remain in the name of the JAR.
> > Simply for the reason of sheer readability. You're not guessing when
> > you look at the file.
>
> I'll grant you that having the version number in the
> -Original Message-
> From: Kyle Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: JAR Repository and File Names
>
>
> > 1) Not using the 'applications' directory for deployment.
>
> 1) Not using the 'applications' directory for deployment.
Even though we still put stuff in an applications directory, that's merely a naming
convention--it's not under the $WL_HOME, so nothing gets auto-deployed (I believe we
have auto deploy turned off in all environments). I think we're al
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 13:56, Kyle Adams wrote:
> > But even in deployment situations you can provide whatever additional
> > information you like. Weblogic is not going to be confused about version
> > names in the jar and you can stuff as much meta info as you like into the
> > JAR.
>
> Whethe
> -Original Message-
> From: Kyle Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 1:56 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: JAR Repository and File Names
>
> Whether or not WebLogic gets "confused" is a matter of
> opinion. When
> But even in deployment situations you can provide whatever additional
> information you like. Weblogic is not going to be confused about version
> names in the jar and you can stuff as much meta info as you like into the
> JAR.
Whether or not WebLogic gets "confused" is a matter of opinion.
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 11:53, Kyle Adams wrote:
> > No, the version of the JAR will always remain in the name of the JAR.
> > Simply for the reason of sheer readability. You're not guessing when
> > you look at the file.
>
> I'll grant you that having the version number in the name of the JAR is
> No, the version of the JAR will always remain in the name of the JAR.
> Simply for the reason of sheer readability. You're not guessing when
> you look at the file.
I'll grant you that having the version number in the name of the JAR is more readable.
That being said, I don't think there's a
On Mon, 2003-10-27 at 10:59, Kyle Adams wrote:
> Apologies in advance for any newbie mistakes, bad assumptions, etc.
>
> We'd love to utilize a JAR repository in our environment (either via Maven or
> Ruper), but all of the proposals I've seen so far center around putting the version
> number in
13 matches
Mail list logo
