Early review of DUCC pre-release - jar naming excluding versions

[Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>]

The popular convention (maven, Eclipse, others) is to now include the version
with the name of the jar.  This is being overridden by some custom Maven
configuration to exclude the version for the Jars produced by the build for DUCC.

Has this been discussed / debated and was there a good justification for this
approach?  If not, I would lean toward following the more prevalent software
packaging practice these days, which seems to include the version as part of the
jar name.  See, for example the ducc distribution runtime lib/ directory where
the majority (but not all) seem to follow this practice.

-Marshall

Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - jar naming excluding versions

[Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>]

I think this was done to make it consistent with naming convention used by
UIMA-SDK and UIMA-AS.
I realize that this perhaps is not a good model to follow. Reopening for
discussion than. If I recall
appending versions to jars will effect DUCC CLI only which explicitly names
jars in a MANIFEST.
Not too terrible to change I think.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:

> The popular convention (maven, Eclipse, others) is to now include the
> version
> with the name of the jar.  This is being overridden by some custom Maven
> configuration to exclude the version for the Jars produced by the build
> for DUCC.
>
> Has this been discussed / debated and was there a good justification for
> this
> approach?  If not, I would lean toward following the more prevalent
> software
> packaging practice these days, which seems to include the version as part
> of the
> jar name.  See, for example the ducc distribution runtime lib/ directory
> where
> the majority (but not all) seem to follow this practice.
>
> -Marshall
>