Maven and excalibur

["Adam R. B. Jack" <aj...@apache.org>]

> maven integration might not be hacky (true, I had no idea we were
> injectin stuff in, so I take that back) but it does not work at all.

Wanna take that back also? ;-) It works for a number of Maven projects.

e.g.


http://brutus.apache.org/gump/public/jakarta-commons-sandbox/commons-id/index.html

See:


http://brutus.apache.org/gump/public/jakarta-commons-sandbox/commons-id/gump_file/build.properties.html

> Problem is
>
> http://brutus.apache.org/gump/public/excalibur/
>

Basically, the first one I looked at either needed more Gump <depends in the
descriptor (or changes to 'jar ids', see next) that lead to Maven jar
overrides. BTW: The 'gump' goal for a Maven project takes this information
from the POM and creates the correct Gump descriptor. Have you tried that?

> Now, tell me, is this just a matter of fixing the excalibur.xml file or,
> like Stephen suggested, the problem is much deeper?

I'm on diaper duty today, so I haven't had chance to read Stephen's
concerns. I also don't know if 'Magic' is involved here. That said, Stephen
did mention groupId and artifactId -- whereas Gump has 'jar id' (which we
map only to artifact id). As I understand it Maven 1.0 is still ok w/
artifact id, it isn't yet requiring groupId, that is coming soon. When it
comes we'll probably use the module name as the groupId default, and allow
overrides.

The main problem we have is that Gump jar ids are not sufficiently unique,
so we've decided to (bit by bit) change ours to match theirs.

When I get time I'll look at these closer.

regards,

Adam


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org

Re: Maven and excalibur

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Been meaning to reply to that other thread for some time... 

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:15:34 -0600, Adam R. B. Jack <aj...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Basically, the first one I looked at either needed more Gump <depends in the
> descriptor (or changes to 'jar ids', see next) that lead to Maven jar
> overrides. BTW: The 'gump' goal for a Maven project takes this information
> from the POM and creates the correct Gump descriptor. Have you tried that?

My main worry is that there may be more information in the gump
descriptor than the maven plugin will create. Is anyone prepared to
try "maven gump" on excalibur and tell me what is missing?

I don't really have a desire to learn any more about gump to be
honest, but am happy to help out.

Niclas showed that Magic's descriptor lets you put gump id's against
every dependency. We can do that in Maven without changing the schema
if we need an interim solution while gump moves to a more robust ID
namespace. But its only going to be helpful if the maven gump goal is
being used to generate the descriptor, so that needs to be attempted
first.

> did mention groupId and artifactId -- whereas Gump has 'jar id' (which we
> map only to artifact id). As I understand it Maven 1.0 is still ok w/
> artifact id, it isn't yet requiring groupId, that is coming soon. When it

We won't "require" groupId in jar overrides for backwards
compatibility, but it needs to be an option to give it, because there
are already conflicts in the artifactId namespace as is shown in
excalibur.

> The main problem we have is that Gump jar ids are not sufficiently unique,
> so we've decided to (bit by bit) change ours to match theirs.
> 
> When I get time I'll look at these closer.

Thanks Adam.

Cheers,
Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org