You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hivemind.apache.org by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> on 2006/03/19 19:12:53 UTC
Scrap module version?
It's beginning to feel to me like HiveMind module version is redundant
with a reasonable Maven 2 build (and I think most Java software will
build with Maven 2 in the near future, or Ant using Ivy).
We never implemented reasonable checks that the version matches
expectations; just that a version is provided and fits a (very
limited) format. I had originally wanted the <dependency> element to
handle this, with partial version matching.
Nowadays, my "less is more" philosophy says the version number
matching falls under the YAGNI category. Possibly <dependency> as
well.
Thoughts?
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hivemind-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hivemind-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Scrap module version?
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
I'm +1 on removing the "version" attribute requirement.
-----Original Message-----
From: Knut Wannheden [mailto:knut.wannheden@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:47 AM
To: hivemind-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Scrap module version?
I agree. We could never quite agree on how the version matching
should be specified so the only policy supported by <dependency> is
"exact version". However I don't think I've ever used it.
So +1 on making the version attribute at least optional.
--knut
On 3/19/06, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's beginning to feel to me like HiveMind module version is redundant
> with a reasonable Maven 2 build (and I think most Java software will
> build with Maven 2 in the near future, or Ant using Ivy).
>
> We never implemented reasonable checks that the version matches
> expectations; just that a version is provided and fits a (very
> limited) format. I had originally wanted the <dependency> element to
> handle this, with partial version matching.
>
> Nowadays, my "less is more" philosophy says the version number
> matching falls under the YAGNI category. Possibly <dependency> as
> well.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: hivemind-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: hivemind-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hivemind-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hivemind-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hivemind-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hivemind-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Scrap module version?
Posted by Knut Wannheden <kn...@gmail.com>.
I agree. We could never quite agree on how the version matching
should be specified so the only policy supported by <dependency> is
"exact version". However I don't think I've ever used it.
So +1 on making the version attribute at least optional.
--knut
On 3/19/06, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's beginning to feel to me like HiveMind module version is redundant
> with a reasonable Maven 2 build (and I think most Java software will
> build with Maven 2 in the near future, or Ant using Ivy).
>
> We never implemented reasonable checks that the version matches
> expectations; just that a version is provided and fits a (very
> limited) format. I had originally wanted the <dependency> element to
> handle this, with partial version matching.
>
> Nowadays, my "less is more" philosophy says the version number
> matching falls under the YAGNI category. Possibly <dependency> as
> well.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: hivemind-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: hivemind-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hivemind-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hivemind-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org