Adam Lally wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thilo Goetz wrote:
3) IMO its better if the jars include the version number - which they
do for the maven repo, but not the ones in the binary distro
I personally agree with you, but we had a long discussion about
this and the "no version numbers in jar names" faction carried
the day. I believe the main reason is that it makes upgrading
to a new version easier, or switching between versions for
testing purposes.
We actually have a Jira issue that may address this, for the next release:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-857
Among the UIMA committers, I'm the main proponent of the "no version
numbers in jar names". Jar file names that change in each version
have always driven me crazy because they force users to update their
classpaths when they upgrade their UIMA version. A lot of tools just
don't handle this well - Eclipse is one example, AFAIK it doesn't give
you any way to use wildcards in classpath so as to pick up any
version.
I don't see UIMA-857 as a solution, because UIMA is an embeddable
component and people want to take our jar files and add them to their
classpaths using typical Java means. I personally wouldn't be happy
relying on some special UIMA mechanism for finding its jar files.
Me neither. If it's just for the command line tooling, that's
fine with me (I never use it anyway ;-). Even then, it's just
one more thing that can go wrong. I don't want version numbers
in jar file names that bad :-)
--Thilo
-Adam
