IMO, if the project claims to be backwards-compatible, then it should include the older classes. If they can exist side-by-side, there should be no issue.
I see your point, though - I just don't think it is methodology-correct to use different versions of the same project in one place, regardless of the saying that "it works", because it just doesn't seem "right" to me... anyway - just my 2 cents; I have no real objection for Maven to support declaring two dependencies of the same artifact with different version. cheers, Arik. On 4/26/07, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Grzegorz Slowikowski wrote on Thursday, April 26, 2007 10:47 AM: > Hi > > Look at hibernate2 and hibernate3 artifacts. They have "hibernate" and > "org.hibernate" > groupIds respectively, so they can be used together (java package > names are different too). > This is IMO the proper way to do this. > > While writing this mail I found: > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD-1500#action_94054 > > which confirms what I have written above. You simply acknowledge that the problem exists! The fact that jMock will now switch groupId form jmock to org.jmock is exactly driven by this limitation. The first question I received from Nat of jMock was: "And what will happoen next time?". And I would rather think about the consequences regarding M2.1 now instead of putting my head into the sand. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
