You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to nmaven-dev@incubator.apache.org by Roland Kofler <ro...@systemone.at> on 2007/05/17 09:32:49 UTC
Package library should be dll
because when you upload a package to you repo you declare -Dpackage-type=dll
and in your pom <package>library</package> thats confusing
in the java world you always use the short version, might be better stick to
it
thank you for the tool
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Package-library-should-be-dll-tf3770719.html#a10660870
Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Package library should be dll
Posted by Roland Kofler <ro...@systemone.at>.
okay i understand your problem and find the namespace idea helpfull
Shane Isbell wrote:
>
> That's a good point. We need to consider some type of namespace convention
> for the packaging. dotnet:library, dotnet:exe, dotnet:winexe may work.
>
> On 5/18/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> In Java land, jar is a jar, and the "other jars" (ejb, maven-plugin,
>> etc) get the more specific name. Does that make sense in this
>> environment, or is it still too ambiguous?
>>
>> Also, 'library' seems at risk of clashing with another packaging type
>> at some point. (Actually dll could too if we started producing win32
>> C apps :)
>>
>> Should they all be specific about being dotnet?
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> On 17/05/2007, at 9:44 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Roland, Evan
>> >
>> > Multiple packaging types have the same dll extension: netplugin,
>> > library,
>> > visual-studio-addin Each of these packaging types needs to be
>> > specified
>> > within the pom file because the life-cycle is slightly different
>> > for the
>> > given packaging type. In the case of the gac types, there are four
>> > flavors
>> > of gac types, all with the dll extension, each resolved
>> > differently. That
>> > some people (myself included) use the extension as the packaging
>> > type in one
>> > context and not in another causes some confusion.
>> >
>> > For consistency, the maven install plugin (dotnet version) would
>> > need to use
>> > -Dextension=dll when installing, but the muliple package types
>> > within the
>> > pom is required.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Shane
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/17/07, Roland Kofler <ro...@systemone.at> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> because when you upload a package to you repo you declare
>> >> -Dpackage-type=dll
>> >> and in your pom <package>library</package> thats confusing
>> >> in the java world you always use the short version, might be
>> >> better stick
>> >> to
>> >> it
>> >>
>> >> thank you for the tool
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >> http://www.nabble.com/Package-library-should-be-dll-
>> >> tf3770719.html#a10660870
>> >> Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com<http://
>> >> nabble.com/>
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Package-library-should-be-dll-tf3770719.html#a10737069
Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Package library should be dll
Posted by Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com>.
That's a good point. We need to consider some type of namespace convention
for the packaging. dotnet:library, dotnet:exe, dotnet:winexe may work.
On 5/18/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> In Java land, jar is a jar, and the "other jars" (ejb, maven-plugin,
> etc) get the more specific name. Does that make sense in this
> environment, or is it still too ambiguous?
>
> Also, 'library' seems at risk of clashing with another packaging type
> at some point. (Actually dll could too if we started producing win32
> C apps :)
>
> Should they all be specific about being dotnet?
>
> - Brett
>
> On 17/05/2007, at 9:44 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
>
> > Hi Roland, Evan
> >
> > Multiple packaging types have the same dll extension: netplugin,
> > library,
> > visual-studio-addin Each of these packaging types needs to be
> > specified
> > within the pom file because the life-cycle is slightly different
> > for the
> > given packaging type. In the case of the gac types, there are four
> > flavors
> > of gac types, all with the dll extension, each resolved
> > differently. That
> > some people (myself included) use the extension as the packaging
> > type in one
> > context and not in another causes some confusion.
> >
> > For consistency, the maven install plugin (dotnet version) would
> > need to use
> > -Dextension=dll when installing, but the muliple package types
> > within the
> > pom is required.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Shane
> >
> >
> > On 5/17/07, Roland Kofler <ro...@systemone.at> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> because when you upload a package to you repo you declare
> >> -Dpackage-type=dll
> >> and in your pom <package>library</package> thats confusing
> >> in the java world you always use the short version, might be
> >> better stick
> >> to
> >> it
> >>
> >> thank you for the tool
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >> http://www.nabble.com/Package-library-should-be-dll-
> >> tf3770719.html#a10660870
> >> Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com<http://
> >> nabble.com/>
> >> .
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: Package library should be dll
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
In Java land, jar is a jar, and the "other jars" (ejb, maven-plugin,
etc) get the more specific name. Does that make sense in this
environment, or is it still too ambiguous?
Also, 'library' seems at risk of clashing with another packaging type
at some point. (Actually dll could too if we started producing win32
C apps :)
Should they all be specific about being dotnet?
- Brett
On 17/05/2007, at 9:44 AM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> Hi Roland, Evan
>
> Multiple packaging types have the same dll extension: netplugin,
> library,
> visual-studio-addin Each of these packaging types needs to be
> specified
> within the pom file because the life-cycle is slightly different
> for the
> given packaging type. In the case of the gac types, there are four
> flavors
> of gac types, all with the dll extension, each resolved
> differently. That
> some people (myself included) use the extension as the packaging
> type in one
> context and not in another causes some confusion.
>
> For consistency, the maven install plugin (dotnet version) would
> need to use
> -Dextension=dll when installing, but the muliple package types
> within the
> pom is required.
>
> Regards,
> Shane
>
>
> On 5/17/07, Roland Kofler <ro...@systemone.at> wrote:
>>
>>
>> because when you upload a package to you repo you declare
>> -Dpackage-type=dll
>> and in your pom <package>library</package> thats confusing
>> in the java world you always use the short version, might be
>> better stick
>> to
>> it
>>
>> thank you for the tool
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Package-library-should-be-dll-
>> tf3770719.html#a10660870
>> Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com<http://
>> nabble.com/>
>> .
>>
>>
Re: Package library should be dll
Posted by Shane Isbell <sh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Roland, Evan
Multiple packaging types have the same dll extension: netplugin, library,
visual-studio-addin Each of these packaging types needs to be specified
within the pom file because the life-cycle is slightly different for the
given packaging type. In the case of the gac types, there are four flavors
of gac types, all with the dll extension, each resolved differently. That
some people (myself included) use the extension as the packaging type in one
context and not in another causes some confusion.
For consistency, the maven install plugin (dotnet version) would need to use
-Dextension=dll when installing, but the muliple package types within the
pom is required.
Regards,
Shane
On 5/17/07, Roland Kofler <ro...@systemone.at> wrote:
>
>
> because when you upload a package to you repo you declare
> -Dpackage-type=dll
> and in your pom <package>library</package> thats confusing
> in the java world you always use the short version, might be better stick
> to
> it
>
> thank you for the tool
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Package-library-should-be-dll-tf3770719.html#a10660870
> Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com<http://nabble.com/>
> .
>
>
Re: Package library should be dll
Posted by Evan Worley <ev...@gmail.com>.
I tend to agree, if consistency for nothing else. In maven we set
<package>jar</package> for java components.
On 5/17/07, Roland Kofler <ro...@systemone.at> wrote:
>
>
> because when you upload a package to you repo you declare
> -Dpackage-type=dll
> and in your pom <package>library</package> thats confusing
> in the java world you always use the short version, might be better stick
> to
> it
>
> thank you for the tool
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Package-library-should-be-dll-tf3770719.html#a10660870
> Sent from the nmaven-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>