You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> on 2006/07/10 21:00:17 UTC
Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven
2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a
structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but
no POMs?
That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1
JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an
explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the
JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time
since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.)
If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my
people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the
Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great.
Thanks,
Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/11/06, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in build uses Maven 2 and depends on the v4
>> POMs to load the Geronimo dependencies correctly....
>
> OK, perhaps I should try to do the same thing that's being done there.
> I'll check it out.
If you discover some kind of magic to get this to work, I would be
interested in hearing about it. Good luck!
Regards,
Alan
Re: Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 7/11/06, Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in build uses Maven 2 and depends on the v4
> POMs to load the Geronimo dependencies correctly....
OK, perhaps I should try to do the same thing that's being done there.
I'll check it out.
Thanks,
Aaron
> If you try to build the Plug-in using legacy Maven 1 repos, it will
> always fail.
>
>
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> > Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >
> >> Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven
> >> 2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a
> >> structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but
> >> no POMs?
> >>
> >> That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1
> >> JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an
> >> explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the
> >> JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time
> >> since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.)
> >>
> >> If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my
> >> people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the
> >> Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great.
> >
> > Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. Why would we need to post maven
> > 1 jars into a maven 2 repository?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Ok. But Aaron's proposal of copying the jars into an m2 repo would not
also help, right?
Regards,
Alan
Donald Woods wrote:
> The Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in build uses Maven 2 and depends on the v4
> POMs to load the Geronimo dependencies correctly....
>
> If you try to build the Plug-in using legacy Maven 1 repos, it will
> always fail.
>
>
>
> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>>> Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven
>>> 2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a
>>> structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but
>>> no POMs?
>>>
>>> That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1
>>> JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an
>>> explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the
>>> JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time
>>> since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.)
>>>
>>> If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my
>>> people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the
>>> Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great.
>>
>> Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. Why would we need to post
>> maven 1 jars into a maven 2 repository?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com>.
The Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in build uses Maven 2 and depends on the v4
POMs to load the Geronimo dependencies correctly....
If you try to build the Plug-in using legacy Maven 1 repos, it will
always fail.
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven
>> 2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a
>> structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but
>> no POMs?
>>
>> That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1
>> JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an
>> explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the
>> JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time
>> since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.)
>>
>> If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my
>> people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the
>> Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great.
>
> Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. Why would we need to post maven
> 1 jars into a maven 2 repository?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 7/11/06, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get into
> trouble later on when transitive dependencies become available. If
> we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built jars accessed
> through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems.
I'm OK with this if that's what most people prefer, but I hope
everyone on the thread will chip in with their preferred group ID.
However, I don't see what the problem is that you're referring to.
Let's say you have a project using M1-built Geronimo 1.1 JARs, and you
later change your project to use the M1-built Geronimo 1.1.1 JARs and
then still later the M2-built Geronimo 1.2 JARs. On that last step,
your build will bring down POMs and some transitive dependencies in
addition to the JARs explicitly listed. What's the problem and where
does it happen?
Thanks,
Aaron
> >> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1
> >> >> and M2
> >> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different.
> >> IIUC, we
> >> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
> >> >
> >> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
> >> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support
> >> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
> >> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID
> >> when they
> >> > update to Geronimo 1.2?
> >> >
> >> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with
> >> dependencies on
> >> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
> >> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
> >> >
> >> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1
> >> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1
> >> Group
> >> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2
> >> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
> >> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Aaron
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
OK.
On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> These appear to be the artifacts built with m1, which I'd expect to
> find here.
>
> I meant that I would not expect to see artifacts built w/ m2 here
> (under http://www.ibiblio.org/maven anywhere) or see the m1 artifacts
> moved to http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo.modules/jars/
>
> The only time I would expect to see stuff under http://
> www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo.modules/jars/ or http://
> www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo/jars/ would be if our m2
> build published to that repository... and since we won't have m2
> build until 1.2 I'm a tad confused myself why this path exists in
> central for 1.0 jars.
>
> --jason
>
>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
>> IMO it would be very confusing to deploy these artifacts anywhere, or
>> expect people to install them by hand with a different groupId.
>
> Copy bad, check. Never want to see them deployed anywhere, I'm
> confused -- they are deployed to
> http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/geronimo/jars/ already.
These appear to be the artifacts built with m1, which I'd expect to
find here.
I meant that I would not expect to see artifacts built w/ m2 here
(under http://www.ibiblio.org/maven anywhere) or see the m1 artifacts
moved to http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo.modules/jars/
The only time I would expect to see stuff under http://
www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo.modules/jars/ or http://
www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo/jars/ would be if our m2
build published to that repository... and since we won't have m2
build until 1.2 I'm a tad confused myself why this path exists in
central for 1.0 jars.
--jason
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> I agree it should use "geronimo", since that is the groupId used for
> the bulk of the m1 build.
OK.
> IMO it would be very confusing to deploy these artifacts anywhere, or
> expect people to install them by hand with a different groupId.
Copy bad, check. Never want to see them deployed anywhere, I'm
confused -- they are deployed to
http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/geronimo/jars/ already.
Thanks,
Aaron
> On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> >>> I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will
> >>> hopefully be sooner rather than later.
> >>
> >> Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the
> >> plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs
> >> around by
> >> hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are
> >> more
> >> people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to
> >> recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra*
> >> hard
> >> to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity).
> >>
> >>> If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should
> >>> setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
> >>
> >> OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or
> >> "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g.,
> >> geronimo-kernel?
> >
> > I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get
> > into trouble later on when transitive dependencies become
> > available. If we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built
> > jars accessed through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems.
> >
> > david jencks
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Aaron
> >>
> >>> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >>> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1
> >>> >> and M2
> >>> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different.
> >>> IIUC, we
> >>> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
> >>> >
> >>> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
> >>> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should
> >>> support
> >>> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
> >>> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID
> >>> when they
> >>> > update to Geronimo 1.2?
> >>> >
> >>> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with
> >>> dependencies on
> >>> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
> >>> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
> >>> >
> >>> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a
> >>> Maven 1
> >>> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1
> >>> Group
> >>> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the
> >>> "Maven 2
> >>> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
> >>> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks,
> >>> > Aaron
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I agree it should use "geronimo", since that is the groupId used for
the bulk of the m1 build.
IMO it would be very confusing to deploy these artifacts anywhere, or
expect people to install them by hand with a different groupId.
--jason
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
>> On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>>> I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will
>>> hopefully be sooner rather than later.
>>
>> Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the
>> plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs
>> around by
>> hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are
>> more
>> people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to
>> recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra*
>> hard
>> to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity).
>>
>>> If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should
>>> setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
>>
>> OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or
>> "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g.,
>> geronimo-kernel?
>
> I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get
> into trouble later on when transitive dependencies become
> available. If we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built
> jars accessed through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems.
>
> david jencks
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>>> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1
>>> >> and M2
>>> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different.
>>> IIUC, we
>>> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
>>> >
>>> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
>>> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should
>>> support
>>> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
>>> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID
>>> when they
>>> > update to Geronimo 1.2?
>>> >
>>> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with
>>> dependencies on
>>> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
>>> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
>>> >
>>> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a
>>> Maven 1
>>> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1
>>> Group
>>> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the
>>> "Maven 2
>>> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
>>> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Aaron
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will
>> hopefully be sooner rather than later.
>
> Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the
> plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs around by
> hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are more
> people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to
> recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard
> to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity).
>
>> If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should
>> setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
>
> OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or
> "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g.,
> geronimo-kernel?
I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get into
trouble later on when transitive dependencies become available. If
we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built jars accessed
through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems.
david jencks
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
>> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>
>> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1
>> >> and M2
>> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different.
>> IIUC, we
>> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
>> >
>> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
>> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support
>> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
>> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID
>> when they
>> > update to Geronimo 1.2?
>> >
>> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with
>> dependencies on
>> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
>> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
>> >
>> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1
>> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1
>> Group
>> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2
>> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
>> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Aaron
>>
>>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will
>> hopefully be sooner rather than later.
>
> Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the
> plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs around by
> hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are more
> people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to
> recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard
> to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity).
You shouldn't need to hand copy M1 jars into an M2 repository. If the
repository declaration is correctly set up, Maven 2 will use the M1 jars
in an M1 repository.
>> If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should
>> setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
>
> OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or
> "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g.,
> geronimo-kernel?
The groupId geronimo refers to the m1 jars and
org.apache.geronimo.modules will refer to the m2 jars.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will
> hopefully be sooner rather than later.
Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the
plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs around by
hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are more
people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to
recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard
to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity).
> If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should
> setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or
"org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g.,
geronimo-kernel?
Thanks,
Aaron
> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1
> >> and M2
> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we
> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
> >
> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support
> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they
> > update to Geronimo 1.2?
> >
> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on
> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
> >
> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1
> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group
> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2
> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Aaron
>
>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will
hopefully be sooner rather than later.
I don't think it is a good idea for m1 projects to publish to m2
repositories (unless the Maven team comes up with a supported plugin
to do so).
If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should
setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
--jason
On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1
>> and M2
>> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we
>> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
>
> So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
> builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support
> Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
> "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they
> update to Geronimo 1.2?
>
> My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on
> Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
> regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
>
> Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1
> repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group
> ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2
> Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
> Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 and M2
> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we
> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2
builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support
Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the
"Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they
update to Geronimo 1.2?
My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on
Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo,
regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on.
Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1
repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group
ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2
Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a
Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)?
Thanks,
Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2.
>
> I didn't know that.
>
>> Why would we need to post maven
>> 1 jars into a maven 2 repository?
>
> Well, if you're creating a Maven 2 project now, and you use the group
> ID "geronimo", you know this is going to have to change as soon as 1.2
> is released. It might be nice to be able to go ahead and use the new
> Geronimo 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs like "org.apache.geronimo.modules" for
> 1.1 as that would stay valid for 1.2 and beyond. So if we put the 1.1
> JARs in a Maven 2 repo with the group ID "org.apache.geronimo.modules"
> then any Geronimo-using POMs written today could be
> forward-compatible.
I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 and M2
jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we
really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On Jul 10, 2006, at 3:10 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> I sure hope we manage to change the groupIds to org.apache.geronimo
> before anything gets released.
I think that this should be done when we are ready to reorganize the
1.2 tree for m2... and probably not before.
--jason
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Jul 10, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>> Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2.
>
> I didn't know that.
>
>> Why would we need to post maven
>> 1 jars into a maven 2 repository?
>
> Well, if you're creating a Maven 2 project now, and you use the group
> ID "geronimo", you know this is going to have to change as soon as 1.2
> is released. It might be nice to be able to go ahead and use the new
> Geronimo 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs like "org.apache.geronimo.modules" for
> 1.1 as that would stay valid for 1.2 and beyond. So if we put the 1.1
> JARs in a Maven 2 repo with the group ID "org.apache.geronimo.modules"
> then any Geronimo-using POMs written today could be
> forward-compatible.
>
> What do you think?
I sure hope we manage to change the groupIds to org.apache.geronimo
before anything gets released.
thanks
david jencks
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2.
I didn't know that.
> Why would we need to post maven
> 1 jars into a maven 2 repository?
Well, if you're creating a Maven 2 project now, and you use the group
ID "geronimo", you know this is going to have to change as soon as 1.2
is released. It might be nice to be able to go ahead and use the new
Geronimo 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs like "org.apache.geronimo.modules" for
1.1 as that would stay valid for 1.2 and beyond. So if we put the 1.1
JARs in a Maven 2 repo with the group ID "org.apache.geronimo.modules"
then any Geronimo-using POMs written today could be
forward-compatible.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven
> 2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a
> structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but
> no POMs?
>
> That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1
> JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an
> explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the
> JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time
> since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.)
>
> If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my
> people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the
> Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great.
Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. Why would we need to post maven
1 jars into a maven 2 repository?
Regards,
Alan