Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Jörg Schaible wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> 2009/11/28 Phil Steitz : > > [snip] > >>> I think adding this to the build.xml in trunk will be confusing. I >>> agree with Sebb that if we do that we need to comment it. Since we >>> are going to have to have a branch to cut the 1.3 release fr

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > 2009/11/28 Phil Steitz : [snip] >> I think adding this to the build.xml in trunk will be confusing. I >> agree with Sebb that if we do that we need to comment it.  Since we >> are going to have to have a branch to cut the 1.3 release from and >> we also need to change th

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

2009/11/28 Phil Steitz : > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> 2009/11/28 Phil Steitz : >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > 2009/11/28 Phil Steitz : >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : Niall Pemberton wrote: > 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible >>> wrote: Hi Grzegorz, >>

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On 28/11/2009, Niall Pemberton wrote: > 2009/11/28 Phil Steitz : > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : > >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: > 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible > wrote: > >>>

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

2009/11/28 Phil Steitz : > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible >> wrote: >>> Hi Grzegorz, >>> >>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote a

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible > wrote: >> Hi Grzegorz, >> >> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04:

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

2009/11/28 Paul Benedict : > I am recommending something unconventional here. We could include the > enforcer plug-in, in DBCP 1.4's POM, to enforce at least JDK 1.6 is > used. Just food for thought. Its not necessary since setting the source/target JDK version to 1.6 will ensure DBCP 1.4 is built

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

I am recommending something unconventional here. We could include the enforcer plug-in, in DBCP 1.4's POM, to enforce at least JDK 1.6 is used. Just food for thought. Paul On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Phil

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Phil and Niall, > > Phil Steitz wrote: > >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jörg Schaible >>> wrote: Hi Grzegorz, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45: > Hi Jo

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Grzegorz, > > Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: > >> Phil Steitz wrote: >

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Phil and Niall, Phil Steitz wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jörg Schaible >> wrote: >>> Hi Grzegorz, >>> >>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45: >>> Hi Jorg Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Grzegorz, > > Grze

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > 2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible >>> wrote: Hi Grzegorz, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: > Phil Steitz wrote: >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

2009/11/27 Phil Steitz : > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi Grzegorz, >>> >>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: >>> Phil Steitz wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: > ... > Good points - so wh

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Grzegorz, >> >> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: >> >>> >>> Phil Steitz wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> ... Good points - so what is your recommendation? o

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Grzegorz, >> >> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45: >> >>> Hi Jorg >>> >>> Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Grzegorz, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Grzegorz, > > Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45: > >> Hi Jorg >> >> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi Grzegorz, >>> >>> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: > > [snip] > >> I didn't though

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Grzegorz, > > Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: > >> >> >> Phil Steitz wrote: >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> >> ... >>> Good points - so what is your recommendation? >>> >>> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Grzegorz, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 10:45: > Hi Jorg > > Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Grzegorz, >> >> Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: [snip] > I didn't thought about Maven in this sentence. For me generally it's not > good practic

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Jorg Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Grzegorz, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: Phil Steitz wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: ... Good points - so what is your recommendation? org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3 commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Grzegorz, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Freitag, 27. November 2009 09:04: > > > Phil Steitz wrote: >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >> > ... >> Good points - so what is your recommendation? >> >> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3 >> commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 >> >> or >> >> org.apache.comm

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Phil Steitz wrote: Niall Pemberton wrote: ... Good points - so what is your recommendation? org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp4:1.3 commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 or org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp:1.3 commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 or org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp:1.4 commons-dbcp:commo

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Niall Pemberton >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: Paul Benedict wrote: > Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-) > > On Thu, Nov 26, 20

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Paul Benedict wrote: > Phil, if you feel strongly about your concerns of incompatibility, > then I say keep the current groupId for 1.3, and move forward with > 1.4/2.0 in the new groupId. This way people who continue to use the > old groupId will never get hit unexpectedly. +1 - Jörg ---

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Paul Benedict wrote: > I am +1 with Niall on two separate releases. +1 Me too - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Paul, Paul Benedict wrote: > Personally, I would not drop commons from the artiactId since it's a > well-known prefix. Anyone who sees "commons" can reasonably guess it's > from Apache Commons. Also let's not forget that in a file system, > namespacing is still important. All file names still

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Phil, if you feel strongly about your concerns of incompatibility, then I say keep the current groupId for 1.3, and move forward with 1.4/2.0 in the new groupId. This way people who continue to use the old groupId will never get hit unexpectedly. Paul On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Phil Steitz

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Niall Pemberton > wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> Paul Benedict wrote: Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-) On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > Another opti

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

I am +1 with Niall on two separate releases. On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Niall Pemberton > wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> Paul Benedict wrote: Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-)

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Personally, I would not drop commons from the artiactId since it's a well-known prefix. Anyone who sees "commons" can reasonably guess it's from Apache Commons. Also let's not forget that in a file system, namespacing is still important. All file names still have to be unique in WEB-INF/lib :-) My

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> Paul Benedict wrote: >>> Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-) >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Paul Benedict >>> wrote: Another option to consider is splitting the ve

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > Paul Benedict wrote: >> Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-) >> >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: >>> Another option to consider is splitting the version numbers such as: >>> >>> JDBC3 --> org.commons.apache.commons-d

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:12: >>> Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: >>>

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:39: [snip] > Did you miss that I cut out the "commons" from the artifactId? Yes, I missed it :D > That way we have commons-dbcp-1.3.jar and dbcp-1.3.jar in the wild. > I guess I liked "dbcp" better than "commons-dbcp4" for the new > artifa

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:12: >> >>> Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Phil, Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: > Jörg Schaible wrote:

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Paul Benedict wrote: > Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-) > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> Another option to consider is splitting the version numbers such as: >> >> JDBC3 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.3.0 >> JDBC4 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.4.0

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:12: > >> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Hi Phil, >>> >>> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: >>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> [snip] >>> > OK, but then we should really think about "drop

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Oops.. I meant minor version bumps ;-) On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > Another option to consider is splitting the version numbers such as: > > JDBC3 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.3.0 > JDBC4 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.4.0 > > Unless you have expectatio

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Another option to consider is splitting the version numbers such as: JDBC3 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.3.0 JDBC4 --> org.commons.apache.commons-dbcp-1.4.0 Unless you have expectations to continue supporting JDBC3 in the next major release, I would seriously suggest a version bump. The t

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Phil, Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 17:12: > Jörg Schaible wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: >> >>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >> >> [snip] >> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement" or not. B

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: > >> Jörg Schaible wrote: > > [snip] > >>> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement" or not. >>> Basically we say that dbcp 1.3 with JDBC4 will not be backward >>> compatible. The

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote: > 2. I agree with Jorg that the JDBC3 version should be the natural > continuation of previous > versions, so commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 would be for JDBC3, not JDBC4. > I know that Tomcat developers are waiting for new version of > commons-dbcp because of some leaks

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Phil, Phil Steitz wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 15:20: > Jörg Schaible wrote: [snip] >> OK, but then we should really think about "drop-in replacement" or not. >> Basically we say that dbcp 1.3 with JDBC4 will not be backward >> compatible. Then why don't we use the new artifactId f

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Paul Benedict wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 05:03: > >> When I was patching Hibernate, they needed different sources because >> of JDBC3/4 incompatibility. It just wasn't possible to compile for >> both dependencies. >> >> I just checked with Brett Por

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Grzegorz, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 10:59: [snip] Hi I want to add something from myself, I think I'm experienced Maven user. 1. As Paul said, when you have two different sources you should not try to use classifiers (I think te

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Grzegorz, Grzegorz Słowikowski wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 10:59: [snip] > Hi > > I want to add something from myself, I think I'm experienced Maven user. > > 1. As Paul said, when you have two different sources you should not try > to use classifiers > (I think technically it co

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Phil Steitz wrote: Paul Benedict wrote: When I was patching Hibernate, they needed different sources because of JDBC3/4 incompatibility. It just wasn't possible to compile for both dependencies. I just checked with Brett Porter of Maven. He says that if the sources are identical, you can u

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Paul, Paul Benedict wrote at Donnerstag, 26. November 2009 05:03: > When I was patching Hibernate, they needed different sources because > of JDBC3/4 incompatibility. It just wasn't possible to compile for > both dependencies. > > I just checked with Brett Porter of Maven. He says that if the

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Paul Benedict wrote: > When I was patching Hibernate, they needed different sources because > of JDBC3/4 incompatibility. It just wasn't possible to compile for > both dependencies. > > I just checked with Brett Porter of Maven. He says that if the sources > are identical, you can use qualifiers;

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

When I was patching Hibernate, they needed different sources because of JDBC3/4 incompatibility. It just wasn't possible to compile for both dependencies. I just checked with Brett Porter of Maven. He says that if the sources are identical, you can use qualifiers; otherwise it would conflict when

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall, Since the "sources" and "javadocs" are qualifiers, I am concerned there is an incompatibility here. I can't prove it, but I suspect there might be. Paul On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> Does adding a clas

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: > Does adding a classifier like "jdbc3" affect the creation of the > -source and -javadoc classifiers? I don't believe it should - those are produced by the sources and javadoc plugins respectively. In the commons build those plugins are conf

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Does adding a classifier like "jdbc3" affect the creation of the -source and -javadoc classifiers? On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Niall Pemberton >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Niall Pemberton > wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >>> Niall Pemberton wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > Phil, > > I don't think you should be modifying t

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: >> Niall Pemberton wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Paul Benedict >>> wrote: Phil, I don't think you should be modifying the version (and groups, really) >>

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Phil Steitz wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: >>> Phil, >>> >>> I don't think you should be modifying the version (and groups, really) >>> here. All the artifacts belong to version 1.3. >>> >>> Maven does ha

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

I think Niall has good counterpoints. I think his point is summed up with: * Keep same groupId * Keep same artifactId * Keep same version * Different classifiers are appropriate. If so, I am +1 with it. Paul On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:2

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> Phil, >> >> I don't think you should be modifying the version (and groups, really) >> here. All the artifacts belong to version 1.3. >> >> Maven does have a concept of a qualifier, but according to Sonatype, >> it's

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > Phil, > > I don't think you should be modifying the version (and groups, really) > here. All the artifacts belong to version 1.3. > > Maven does have a concept of a qualifier, but according to Sonatype, > it's only to capture milestone build

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Olivier Lamy wrote: > Hi Folks, > If you change groupId could you please provide a relocation pom in the > old groupId > commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 -> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp-jdbc3:1.3 Will do if we decide to go that route. Phil > > -- > Olivier > > 2009/11/26 Phil Steitz : >> Paul B

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Correction: For users who use employ version ranges in their POMs like "[1.3,)" they are telling Maven they want >= 1.3. It is misleading -- I actually believe wrong -- to say that the "1.3-jdbc3" version is a greater version than than version "1.3". Paul On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Paul Be

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Hi Folks, If you change groupId could you please provide a relocation pom in the old groupId commons-dbcp:commons-dbcp:1.3 -> org.apache.commons:commons-dbcp-jdbc3:1.3 -- Olivier 2009/11/26 Phil Steitz : > Paul Benedict wrote: >> Phil, >> >> I don't think you should be modifying the version (and

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Brent, If you haven't read the Sonatype link, it tells some important things about how the version number is interpreted by Maven. The standard is using 3 numbers, and it allows Maven to know that, for example, 1.3 < 1.4. But what happens if you version as "1.3-jdbc3"? Is anyone going to confident

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Paul Benedict wrote: > Phil, > > I don't think you should be modifying the version (and groups, really) > here. All the artifacts belong to version 1.3. > > Maven does have a concept of a qualifier, but according to Sonatype, > it's only to capture milestone builds: > http://www.sonatype.com/book

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > > Phil, > > I don't think you should be modifying the version (and groups, really) > here. All the artifacts belong to version 1.3. > > Maven does have a concept of a qualifier, but according to Sonatype, > it's only to capture milestone buil

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Phil, I don't think you should be modifying the version (and groups, really) here. All the artifacts belong to version 1.3. Maven does have a concept of a qualifier, but according to Sonatype, it's only to capture milestone builds: http://www.sonatype.com/books/maven-book/reference/pom-relationsh

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

Phil Steitz wrote: > I am about to roll an RC and I need to make sure all are OK with the > artifact names and repo placement > > JDBC 4 version (JDK 1.6) > groupId org.apache.maven Oops! I obviously mean commons above :) > artifactID commons-dbcp > version 1.3 > > JDBC 3 version (JDK 1.4-1.5)

[dbcp] 1.3 release packaging - take two

I am about to roll an RC and I need to make sure all are OK with the artifact names and repo placement JDBC 4 version (JDK 1.6) groupId org.apache.maven artifactID commons-dbcp version 1.3 JDBC 3 version (JDK 1.4-1.5) groupId commons-dbcp artifactId commons-dbcp version 1.3-jdbc3 Giving the 1.3

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging

On 25/11/2009, Phil Steitz wrote: > sebb wrote: > > On 25/11/2009, Phil Steitz wrote: > >> The 1.3 release of dbcp will support JDK 1.4, 1.5 (JDBC 3) and 1.6 > >> (JDBC 4). The Ant build in trunk will work with all three, > >> commenting out the JDBC 4 code when compiling under 1.4 or 1.5.

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging

sebb wrote: > On 25/11/2009, Phil Steitz wrote: >> The 1.3 release of dbcp will support JDK 1.4, 1.5 (JDBC 3) and 1.6 >> (JDBC 4). The Ant build in trunk will work with all three, >> commenting out the JDBC 4 code when compiling under 1.4 or 1.5. >> >> It does not appear to be possible to prod

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging

On 25/11/2009, Phil Steitz wrote: > The 1.3 release of dbcp will support JDK 1.4, 1.5 (JDBC 3) and 1.6 > (JDBC 4). The Ant build in trunk will work with all three, > commenting out the JDBC 4 code when compiling under 1.4 or 1.5. > > It does not appear to be possible to produce a single binary

Re: [dbcp] 1.3 release packaging

JBoss Hibernate 3.5 is sitting in the same position because it has to support both JDBC 3 and JDBC 4. There are obvious incompatibilities. For their purposes, they created a general abstraction and then allowed implementations to plug-in. I would similarly follow suit. Produce separate assemblies

[dbcp] 1.3 release packaging

The 1.3 release of dbcp will support JDK 1.4, 1.5 (JDBC 3) and 1.6 (JDBC 4). The Ant build in trunk will work with all three, commenting out the JDBC 4 code when compiling under 1.4 or 1.5. It does not appear to be possible to produce a single binary jar which will work for both JDBC 3 and 4, so