On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Yes configuration2 will be incompatible, it's a complete refactoring of the
> API. The package was already changed. My concern is about the artifactId
> causing a confusion on the actual version of the artifact.
We're all going that route
James Carman a écrit :
Is configuration2 binary incompatible with configuration (1)? If it
is, then you should consider changing the package name and using:
artifactId: commons-configuration2
groupId: org.apache.commons
This would be for consistency's sake.
Yes configuration2 will be incompa
Is configuration2 binary incompatible with configuration (1)? If it
is, then you should consider changing the package name and using:
artifactId: commons-configuration2
groupId: org.apache.commons
This would be for consistency's sake.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> config
configuration2 should use groupId org.apache.commons and an artifactId
of commons-configuration. I am not going to worry about configuration3
- we are still a long way off from completing configuration2.
Ralph
On Jun 22, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Jörg Schaible a écrit :
Simp
Jörg Schaible a écrit :
Simply because the groupId change is a one time action only and will not
scale for configuration3 ;-)
Bah, when Commons Configuration started, Maven didn't have groupIds,
there was a unique id. That was 5 years ago. Configuration 2 is far from
finished, Configuration
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Jörg Schaible a écrit :
>
>> The artifactId *is* the base name of the jar file. If you configure a
>> final name, this has only an effect on the name of the jar in your target
>> directory, but not in any repository (local or remote). Therefore it does
>> not make sense to
Jörg Schaible a écrit :
The artifactId *is* the base name of the jar file. If you configure a final
name, this has only an effect on the name of the jar in your target
directory, but not in any repository (local or remote). Therefore it does
not make sense to redefine it for a standard project b
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Jörg Schaible a écrit :
>
>> Yes, because then the artifact name is the same as for the 1.x series and
>> it is no longer possible to use both artifacts at the same time with
>> Maven.
>
> As long as the groupId/artifactId for Commons Configuration 1.x and 2.x
> are diffe
Jörg Schaible a écrit :
Yes, because then the artifact name is the same as for the 1.x series and it
is no longer possible to use both artifacts at the same time with Maven.
As long as the groupId/artifactId for Commons Configuration 1.x and 2.x
are different shouldn't they be able to coexist
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> The artifact generated for Commons Configuration 2 is currently:
>
>commons-configuration2-2.0.jar
>
> which could be confused with Commons Configuration 2.2. Is there any
> objection to change it to:
>
>commons-configuration-2.0.jar
Yes, because then the artifa
The artifact generated for Commons Configuration 2 is currently:
commons-configuration2-2.0.jar
which could be confused with Commons Configuration 2.2. Is there any
objection to change it to:
commons-configuration-2.0.jar
Emmanuel Bourg
--
11 matches
Mail list logo
