<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<span style="font-size:8pt"><span style="color: #EC7328;
font-family: Pristina, Arial, Helvetica, Verdana; font-size:
12pt"></span>
<!-- "Exder - Makes you do business" -->
</span>
<div class="moz-signature">
<div style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana,
sans-serif;font-size:10pt">
</div>
</div>
Disclaimer: I have only been using Maven for about 6 months. I have
added stuff to a Nexus repo, but know nothing of Maven Central
uploads.<br>
<br>
Joe Bowbeer wrote:<br>
> If there is a problem with the way jdom2 was published to
maven, this might<br>
> affect your stats?<br>
<br>
Joe may have a point. In case your project has (transient)
dependencies on JDOM 1, it means JDOM 2 cannot be added using Maven.
(Instead, you may download the JAR from jdom.org and add to your
Nexus repo with a modified artifactId.)<br>
<br>
<br>
Blaming Maven for requiring unique artifact ids, is like blaming
Java for requiring different package names to reuse the same class
name (hence, org.jdom2). I cannot see how this is stupid - just a
convention to be systematic. The fact that you may get it wrong if
you do not understand the conventions or see the implications of the
system does not change that.<br>
<br>
See more below.<br>
<br>
Rolf Lear wrote<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
... I get the
<br>
impression that Maven developers expect the world to conform to
them,
<br>
rather than tolerating the heterogeneous we live in. It is
"everyone else's
<br>
fault" if things don't work the maven way.....
<br>
</blockquote>
As has been mentioned, Maven assumes convention over configuration.
I agree it was awkward at first, but now I see benefits.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
1. you say that the artifact does not need to be the same as the
'base
<br>
name' of the jar, yet everything i have read suggests it does need
to be
<br>
the same</blockquote>
I think the point is, that non-Maven JARs do not have to have the
same name as the non-Maven (jdom.org) ones.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">... I recall that when I tried to upload
maven bundles to
<br>
sonatype, the jar name has to be of the specific form
<br>
<artifact>-<version>-<subcomp>.jar, If your
artifact is abc123 and the
<br>
version is 1.2.3 then it expects abc123-1.2.3.jar,
<br>
abc123-1.2.3-sources.jar, abc123-1.2.3-javadocs.jar, etc. <br>
</blockquote>
You may want to check if it is possible to override the filename of
the JAR by also providing the POM (and have the repo generate the
filename).<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
2. If it is possible to load jdom-2.0.2.jar in to the jdom2
artifact, I
<br>
will consider it... but what about people who are already pulling
2.0.0 and
<br>
2.0.1 from the jdom artifact? How will they know to 'move' if
their
<br>
dependencies are not going to move with the artifact....? If I can
keep the
<br>
jdom-2.0.x.jar, I would also consider deploying to *both* jdom2
and jdom
<br>
artifacts....
<br>
</blockquote>
I don't have a good answer for this. I've run into this issue with
other project, changing group id as well.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
3. How do I 'notify' the 30k people a month using 1.1 that they
should
<br>
upgrade/change their artifact to jdom2?</blockquote>
On this mailing list + jdom.org...?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
4. Maven provides no way to 'test' something... (at least not with
the
<br>
simple 'bundle' upload). How do I do a 'dry run'? I have already
got the
<br>
JDOM beta's in the jdom2 artifact because I needed to get some
'practice'
<br>
in.....<br>
</blockquote>
Could you set up a local repo to test with...?<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The massive re-organization of the code
would be a huge impact on the version history would be a PITA for
a start....<br>
</blockquote>
How come, when you're already on Git?<br>
<br>
<br>
</Mattias><br>
</body>
</html>