You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> on 2005/10/29 20:19:50 UTC
Specs directory structure
I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason,
this is what I got:
Normally we just have this directory structure:
specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
The pom for the specs would be like this:
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
<name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
<version>1.0</version>
With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
<dependency>
The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will be to
add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
What do yo think?
-dain
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
Just re-reading that I realised it could be a bit confusing as 2.4-1
and 2.4-1.0 look very similar.
The difference is that the first would be:
<artifactId>servlet</artifactId>
<version>2.4-1</version>
as opposed to
<artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
I think this is an interesting thing to discuss and perhaps feed back
into the Maven default versioning rules to accommodate it in general
if there is something better that we can come up with.
- Brett
On 11/1/05, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, I meant a version of 2.4-1, 2.4-2.
>
> I think there is advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'll let you
> all decide what's best to work with. I just wanted to point out that
> omitting the version won't work so it'll need to be specified, and
> personally I'd find that a bit confusing presented with:
>
> servlet-2.4-1.0.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> > Just to clarify you mean we should have this:
> >
> > <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> > <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> > <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
> > <version>1</version>
> >
> > So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer?
> >
> > BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified
> > version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are
> > mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases. Also
> > if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time,
> > we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the
> > debug symbols to match-up.
> >
> > -dain
> >
> > On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> >
> > > I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
> > > omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is
> > > probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'd prefer to have:
> > > servlet-api-2.4
> > > servlet-api-2.4-1
> > > servlet-api-2.4-2
> > > or similar.
> > >
> > > (Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the same
> > > source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
> > > creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
> > > Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
> > > anyway :)
> > >
> > > Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it might
> > > be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of
> > > the spec number.
> > >
> > > My 2cents...
> > >
> > > - Brett
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
> > >> to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason,
> > >> this is what I got:
> > >>
> > >> Normally we just have this directory structure:
> > >>
> > >> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
> > >> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
> > >> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
> > >> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
> > >>
> > >> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
> > >> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
> > >> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> > >> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
> > >> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
> > >> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> > >> The pom for the specs would be like this:
> > >>
> > >> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> > >> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> > >> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
> > >> <version>1.0</version>
> > >> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
> > >> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
> > >>
> > >> <dependency>
> > >> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> > >> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> > >> <dependency>
> > >>
> > >> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
> > >> geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will be to
> > >> add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
> > >>
> > >> What do yo think?
> > >>
> > >> -dain
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
This is starting to sound pretty interesting. Could you flesh out this
example for those who are not maven gurus?
Regards,
Alan
Brett Porter wrote, On 10/31/2005 12:20 PM:
>Yes, version ranges work, but simply omitting the version won't do it.
>
>You could have [2.4,2.5) to pick up 2.4, 2.4-1, 2.4-2, etc. though.
>
>Cheers,
>Brett
>
>On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, I thought one of the big features of m2 was support for version
>>ranges.
>>
>>BTW I find the name servlet-2.4-1.0 confusing myself.
>>
>>-dain
>>
>>On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, I meant a version of 2.4-1, 2.4-2.
>>>
>>>I think there is advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'll let you
>>>all decide what's best to work with. I just wanted to point out that
>>>omitting the version won't work so it'll need to be specified, and
>>>personally I'd find that a bit confusing presented with:
>>>
>>>servlet-2.4-1.0.
>>>
>>>- Brett
>>>
>>>On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just to clarify you mean we should have this:
>>>>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>>>> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
>>>> <version>1</version>
>>>>
>>>>So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer?
>>>>
>>>>BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified
>>>>version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are
>>>>mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases. Also
>>>>if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time,
>>>>we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the
>>>>debug symbols to match-up.
>>>>
>>>>-dain
>>>>
>>>>On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
>>>>>omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is
>>>>>probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
>>>>>
>>>>>Personally, I'd prefer to have:
>>>>>servlet-api-2.4
>>>>>servlet-api-2.4-1
>>>>>servlet-api-2.4-2
>>>>>or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>>(Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the
>>>>>same
>>>>>source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
>>>>>creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
>>>>>Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
>>>>>anyway :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it
>>>>>might
>>>>>be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of
>>>>>the spec number.
>>>>>
>>>>>My 2cents...
>>>>>
>>>>>- Brett
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
>>>>>>to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason,
>>>>>>this is what I got:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Normally we just have this directory structure:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>>>>specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>>>>specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
>>>>>>When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>>>>specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>>>>specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
>>>>>>specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>>>>specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>>>>specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
>>>>>>The pom for the specs would be like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>>>>>> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
>>>>>> <version>1.0</version>
>>>>>>With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
>>>>>>maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>>asf/
>>>>>>geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will
>>>>>>be to
>>>>>>add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What do yo think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-dain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Brett Porter wrote, On 10/31/2005 12:52 PM:
>Not exactly. The soft version is the version that will be used if it
>fits in the valid ranges, and ignored if not. The conflict resolver in
>play decides whether to use the nearest or newest of these versions -
>in 2.0 only "nearest" was enabled.
>
>If you want to allow a range, you have to give it an actual range in
>the dependency declaration.
>
>We're certainly looking to make some improvements to this based on
>experience in 2.1 which is in planning now - so I appreciate any
>suggestions.
>
>Either scheme will let you do what you want using a range whether it
>is [2.4,2.5) or [1.0,); it's just a matter of what you find
>friendliest and most manageable from a perspective of releasing the
>specs.
>
>Maybe this is better:
>
>servlet-2.4-spec-1.0
>
>Where 1.0 is the version, servlet-2.4-spec is the artifact Id.
>
>
That looks great, if that's what it takes to make sure that servlet-2.4
is the artifact id.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
Not exactly. The soft version is the version that will be used if it
fits in the valid ranges, and ignored if not. The conflict resolver in
play decides whether to use the nearest or newest of these versions -
in 2.0 only "nearest" was enabled.
If you want to allow a range, you have to give it an actual range in
the dependency declaration.
We're certainly looking to make some improvements to this based on
experience in 2.1 which is in planning now - so I appreciate any
suggestions.
Either scheme will let you do what you want using a range whether it
is [2.4,2.5) or [1.0,); it's just a matter of what you find
friendliest and most manageable from a perspective of releasing the
specs.
Maybe this is better:
servlet-2.4-spec-1.0
Where 1.0 is the version, servlet-2.4-spec is the artifact Id.
Cheers,
Brett
On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> From what I read on the maven wiki, you support soft versions, so
> using the style you described below would <version>2.4</version>
> resolve to the newest 2.4* version you have in your local repo. Is
> that accurate?
>
> -dain
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
From what I read on the maven wiki, you support soft versions, so
using the style you described below would <version>2.4</version>
resolve to the newest 2.4* version you have in your local repo. Is
that accurate?
-dain
On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Yes, version ranges work, but simply omitting the version won't do it.
>
> You could have [2.4,2.5) to pick up 2.4, 2.4-1, 2.4-2, etc. though.
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, I thought one of the big features of m2 was support for version
>> ranges.
>>
>> BTW I find the name servlet-2.4-1.0 confusing myself.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually, I meant a version of 2.4-1, 2.4-2.
>>>
>>> I think there is advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'll
>>> let you
>>> all decide what's best to work with. I just wanted to point out that
>>> omitting the version won't work so it'll need to be specified, and
>>> personally I'd find that a bit confusing presented with:
>>>
>>> servlet-2.4-1.0.
>>>
>>> - Brett
>>>
>>> On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just to clarify you mean we should have this:
>>>>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>>>> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
>>>> <version>1</version>
>>>>
>>>> So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer?
>>>>
>>>> BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified
>>>> version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are
>>>> mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases.
>>>> Also
>>>> if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time,
>>>> we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the
>>>> debug symbols to match-up.
>>>>
>>>> -dain
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
>>>>> omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though
>>>>> it is
>>>>> probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I'd prefer to have:
>>>>> servlet-api-2.4
>>>>> servlet-api-2.4-1
>>>>> servlet-api-2.4-2
>>>>> or similar.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the
>>>>> same
>>>>> source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
>>>>> creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
>>>>> Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
>>>>> anyway :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it
>>>>> might
>>>>> be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number
>>>>> instead of
>>>>> the spec number.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2cents...
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brett
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and
>>>>>> Jason,
>>>>>> this is what I got:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Normally we just have this directory structure:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>>>> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>>>> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
>>>>>> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>>>> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>>>> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
>>>>>> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>>>> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>>>> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
>>>>>> The pom for the specs would be like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>>>>>> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
>>>>>> <version>1.0</version>
>>>>>> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec
>>>>>> automatically:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>>>> asf/
>>>>>> geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will
>>>>>> be to
>>>>>> add the version number of the specification to the directory
>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do yo think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -dain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
Yes, version ranges work, but simply omitting the version won't do it.
You could have [2.4,2.5) to pick up 2.4, 2.4-1, 2.4-2, etc. though.
Cheers,
Brett
On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> Oh, I thought one of the big features of m2 was support for version
> ranges.
>
> BTW I find the name servlet-2.4-1.0 confusing myself.
>
> -dain
>
> On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> > Actually, I meant a version of 2.4-1, 2.4-2.
> >
> > I think there is advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'll let you
> > all decide what's best to work with. I just wanted to point out that
> > omitting the version won't work so it'll need to be specified, and
> > personally I'd find that a bit confusing presented with:
> >
> > servlet-2.4-1.0.
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> > On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Just to clarify you mean we should have this:
> >>
> >> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> >> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
> >> <version>1</version>
> >>
> >> So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer?
> >>
> >> BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified
> >> version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are
> >> mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases. Also
> >> if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time,
> >> we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the
> >> debug symbols to match-up.
> >>
> >> -dain
> >>
> >> On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
> >>> omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is
> >>> probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I'd prefer to have:
> >>> servlet-api-2.4
> >>> servlet-api-2.4-1
> >>> servlet-api-2.4-2
> >>> or similar.
> >>>
> >>> (Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the
> >>> same
> >>> source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
> >>> creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
> >>> Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
> >>> anyway :)
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it
> >>> might
> >>> be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of
> >>> the spec number.
> >>>
> >>> My 2cents...
> >>>
> >>> - Brett
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
> >>>> to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason,
> >>>> this is what I got:
> >>>>
> >>>> Normally we just have this directory structure:
> >>>>
> >>>> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
> >>>> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
> >>>> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
> >>>> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
> >>>>
> >>>> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
> >>>> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
> >>>> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> >>>> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
> >>>> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
> >>>> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> >>>> The pom for the specs would be like this:
> >>>>
> >>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> >>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> >>>> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
> >>>> <version>1.0</version>
> >>>> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
> >>>> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
> >>>>
> >>>> <dependency>
> >>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> >>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> >>>> <dependency>
> >>>>
> >>>> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/
> >>>> asf/
> >>>> geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will
> >>>> be to
> >>>> add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do yo think?
> >>>>
> >>>> -dain
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Oh, I thought one of the big features of m2 was support for version
ranges.
BTW I find the name servlet-2.4-1.0 confusing myself.
-dain
On Oct 31, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Actually, I meant a version of 2.4-1, 2.4-2.
>
> I think there is advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'll let you
> all decide what's best to work with. I just wanted to point out that
> omitting the version won't work so it'll need to be specified, and
> personally I'd find that a bit confusing presented with:
>
> servlet-2.4-1.0.
>
> - Brett
>
> On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>> Just to clarify you mean we should have this:
>>
>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
>> <version>1</version>
>>
>> So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer?
>>
>> BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified
>> version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are
>> mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases. Also
>> if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time,
>> we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the
>> debug symbols to match-up.
>>
>> -dain
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
>>> omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is
>>> probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'd prefer to have:
>>> servlet-api-2.4
>>> servlet-api-2.4-1
>>> servlet-api-2.4-2
>>> or similar.
>>>
>>> (Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the
>>> same
>>> source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
>>> creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
>>> Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
>>> anyway :)
>>>
>>> Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it
>>> might
>>> be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of
>>> the spec number.
>>>
>>> My 2cents...
>>>
>>> - Brett
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
>>>> to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason,
>>>> this is what I got:
>>>>
>>>> Normally we just have this directory structure:
>>>>
>>>> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
>>>> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
>>>>
>>>> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
>>>> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
>>>> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
>>>> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
>>>> The pom for the specs would be like this:
>>>>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>>>> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
>>>> <version>1.0</version>
>>>> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
>>>> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
>>>>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>>>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>>>> <dependency>
>>>>
>>>> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/
>>>> asf/
>>>> geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will
>>>> be to
>>>> add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
>>>>
>>>> What do yo think?
>>>>
>>>> -dain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
Actually, I meant a version of 2.4-1, 2.4-2.
I think there is advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'll let you
all decide what's best to work with. I just wanted to point out that
omitting the version won't work so it'll need to be specified, and
personally I'd find that a bit confusing presented with:
servlet-2.4-1.0.
- Brett
On 11/1/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> Just to clarify you mean we should have this:
>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
> <version>1</version>
>
> So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer?
>
> BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified
> version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are
> mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases. Also
> if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time,
> we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the
> debug symbols to match-up.
>
> -dain
>
> On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> > I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
> > omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is
> > probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
> >
> > Personally, I'd prefer to have:
> > servlet-api-2.4
> > servlet-api-2.4-1
> > servlet-api-2.4-2
> > or similar.
> >
> > (Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the same
> > source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
> > creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
> > Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
> > anyway :)
> >
> > Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it might
> > be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of
> > the spec number.
> >
> > My 2cents...
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> >
> > On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
> >> to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason,
> >> this is what I got:
> >>
> >> Normally we just have this directory structure:
> >>
> >> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
> >> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
> >> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
> >> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
> >>
> >> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
> >> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> >> The pom for the specs would be like this:
> >>
> >> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> >> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
> >> <version>1.0</version>
> >> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
> >> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
> >>
> >> <dependency>
> >> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> >> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> >> <dependency>
> >>
> >> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
> >> geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will be to
> >> add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
> >>
> >> What do yo think?
> >>
> >> -dain
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Just to clarify you mean we should have this:
<groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
<artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
<name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
<version>1</version>
So the version number is a single non-dotted increasing integer?
BTW for most APIs we will be able to simply release a certified
version and never update, but for some APIs, like JavaMail, are
mostly implementation code, we will have to to patch releases. Also
if we get into the habit of adding JavaDoc documentation over time,
we will have to do periodic release to get the line numbers in the
debug symbols to match-up.
-dain
On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
> omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is
> probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
>
> Personally, I'd prefer to have:
> servlet-api-2.4
> servlet-api-2.4-1
> servlet-api-2.4-2
> or similar.
>
> (Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the same
> source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
> creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
> Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
> anyway :)
>
> Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it might
> be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of
> the spec number.
>
> My 2cents...
>
> - Brett
>
>
> On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
>> to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason,
>> this is what I got:
>>
>> Normally we just have this directory structure:
>>
>> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
>> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
>> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
>> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
>>
>> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
>> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
>> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
>> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
>> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
>> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
>> The pom for the specs would be like this:
>>
>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
>> <version>1.0</version>
>> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
>> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
>>
>> <dependency>
>> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
>> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
>> <dependency>
>>
>> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
>> geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will be to
>> add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
>>
>> What do yo think?
>>
>> -dain
>>
>
Re: Specs directory structure
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
I think this versioning has potential to be confusing, and the
omission of <version/> below doesn't actually do that - though it is
probably possible with a version of (,) that includes everything.
Personally, I'd prefer to have:
servlet-api-2.4
servlet-api-2.4-1
servlet-api-2.4-2
or similar.
(Technically, the last "build number" is used for rebuilding the same
source code, not patching, but I think the alternative of 2.4.x
creates some more confusion and the above will work as intended).
Ideally, once 2.4 is compliant you don't need to release it again
anyway :)
Perhaps when we have proper spec-dependency handling in Maven it might
be less confusing to use the geronimo-spec version number instead of
the spec number.
My 2cents...
- Brett
On 10/30/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I know this has been talked about before on this list, but I'd like
> to get the proposal in one place. With the help of Alan and Jason,
> this is what I got:
>
> Normally we just have this directory structure:
>
> specs/trunk/servlet-2.2/src/
> specs/trunk/servlet-2.4/src/
> specs/trunk/jsp-2.4/src/
> When we are happy with the specs we make a tag:
>
> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.2/src/
> specs/tags/1.0/servlet-2.4/src/
> specs/tags/1.0/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.2/src/
> specs/tags/1.1/servlet-2.4/src/
> specs/tags/1.1/javamail-2.2-r2/src/
> The pom for the specs would be like this:
>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> <name>Geronimo :: Servlet API</name>
> <version>1.0</version>
> With maven 2 version ranges a user can just have the following and
> maven will pick the most resent release of our spec automatically:
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.geronimo.specs</groupId>
> <artifactId>servlet-2.4</artifactId>
> <dependency>
>
> The current directory structure in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
> geronimo/specs is very close to this. The only big change will be to
> add the version number of the specification to the directory name.
>
> What do yo think?
>
> -dain
>