FAQ
Can you avoid cross posting? I went to reply to this on dev@mojo and
it had the reply-to of this list as gmail merges the messages.

If you aren't getting the answers you're seeking on dev@mojo you can
post here to point people at it, but cross posting in general is kinda
evil :)

Thanks,
Brett
On 18/09/2009, at 6:41 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:

OK, here is the problem set:

For animal-sniffer, we need to have signatures of each of the java
runtime
libraries (i.e. the animal smells/scents)

That way animal-sniffer can detect whether you are compatible with a
specific java runtime library.

Initially I was going to have these signatures as primary artifacts,
so you
would have one pom.xml for each java version...

Then jason and a few others felt that these were not really a
packaging
type, and it would be better to have them as secondary artifacts...

Actually this is somewhat better... as we can differentiate by
classifier
and add value using the classifier...

Of course we then hit the question, how should we divide things up?
in the
following bgid=org.codehaus.mojo.animal-sniffer

Option 1:

bgid:java:1.0:java11, bgid:java:1.0:java12, bgid:java:1.0:java13,
bgid:java:1.0:java14, bgid:java:1.0:java15, bgid:java:1.0:java16

pros:
* if we generate bad signatures, we can just rev the version number
and
people can just pick up the new rev
anti:
* version ranges cannot be used to pick a signature range
* no room for differentiating vendor specific signatures
* signature descriptions would have to be limited to broad sweeps,
e.g. all
of java 1.4... and thus we could miss some signature differences
between
1.4.0, 1.4.1 and 1.4.2... unless we use java140, java141, java142 as
the
classifiers [just plain ugly]

Option 2:

bgid:java:1.1.0-1, bgid:java:1.2.2-1, bgid:java:1.3.2-20,
bgid:java:1.4.2-19, bgid:java:1.5.0-19, bgid:java:1.6.0-15

pros:
* version ranges now specify the version of java that you are after.
* we still have classifier for vendor specific signatures
anti:
* what happens if we find that 1.4.2-19 is bad and we have already
generated
the signatures for 1.4.2-20... we cannot up the build number as the
next one
is taken, we cannot add a qualifier as qualifier < no qualifier, and
we've
used up all the segments that maven 2.x supports

Option 3:

bgid:java1:1.0.1, bgid:java1:2.2.1, bgid:java1:3.2.20,
bgid:java1:4.2.19,
bgid:java1:5.0.19, bgid:java1:6.0.15

pros:
* we have the build number to fix bad signatures
* for 5.0+ the version number matches the marketeers version number
for java
* we still have classifiers for vendor specific signatures
anti:
* not the version numbers that people are expecting

Option 4:

bgid:java11:1.0, bgid:j2se12:1.0, bgid:j2se13:1.0, bgid:j2se14:1.0,
bgid:javase5:1.0, bgid:javase6:1.0

pros:
* plenty of room on version numbers
* still have classifiers
anti:
* now version ranges are no use for specifying the signatures to
check.

Thoughts anyone? other options?

-Stephen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 2 of 2 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupdev @
categoriesmaven
postedSep 17, '09 at 8:42p
activeSep 18, '09 at 2:18a
posts2
users2
websitemaven.apache.org
irc#maven

2 users in discussion

Stephen Connolly: 1 post Brett Porter: 1 post

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase