Not really. If you can insure that only a single version of the artifact is on the classpath then there is no need for package renaming. The concept here is very similar to how packages in RedHat or Debian versions of Linux work. I will admit that without a tool like Maven it would be much more difficult to manage these, but that is the value of using a smart tool to do the build.
Ralph On Nov 13, 2010, at 7:13 AM, James Carman wrote: > This stuff isn't just all about Maven. The artifactId change is, but > the package name change is useful (and even required) in non-maven > environments, too. > > On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Ralph Goers > <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> This is a great post. Personally, I think the need to do this is completely >> caused by Maven and I've been discussing this with them for years. I will >> be writing up a proposal on the Maven wiki which would eliminate the need to >> keep renaming packages and artifacts. Instead, artifacts would contain >> additional metadata they could use to describe things like the version(s) of >> the API that they support, configuration versions, and other attributes that >> might affect the user of the artifact. Then users of the artifact, in >> addition to specifying the groupId and artifactId would specify the >> attributes and their versions that they require. Maven could then use this >> information to insure that only a single version of the artifact is present >> and that it meets the requirements of all the projects that list it as a >> dependency. If multiple projects specify the artifact with different >> metadata that can't be resolved by any available version of the artifact >> then the build would fail. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Nov 13, 2010, at 6:32 AM, Apache Wiki wrote: >> >>> Dear Wiki user, >>> >>> You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Commons Wiki" for >>> change notification. >>> >>> The "MavenGroupIDChange" page has been changed by sebbapache. >>> http://wiki.apache.org/commons/MavenGroupIDChange?action=diff&rev1=3&rev2=4 >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> === Change of package name === >>> If the change from commons-foo:commons-foo to >>> org.apache.commons:commons-foo is accompanied by a change to the Java >>> package name, e.g. to org.apache.commons.foo3, then there will be no >>> classpath issue, as both Maven and Java treat the artifacts as different. >>> >>> - However, the change of Java package name is neither binary nor >>> source-compatible, and can require a lot of work for users of Commons Foo. >>> This may be acceptable if the new version has major changes to the API, but >>> not otherwise - why should users (who may not even use Maven) be forced to >>> change their code just to upgrade to the latest version (James Carman: the >>> user will thank us when they try to use a library that requires the older >>> version, we shouldn't discount this too mcuh. This approach solves the >>> "jar hell" issue)? >>> + There are two possible scenarios here >>> + * The new version of the code is binary incompatible with the old version. >>> + * The new version is binary compatible with the old version. >>> >>> + However, the change of Java package name is neither binary nor >>> source-compatible, and can require a lot of work for users of Commons Foo. >>> This may be acceptable if the new version has incompatible changes to the >>> API, but not otherwise - why should users (who may not even use Maven) be >>> forced to change their code just to upgrade to the latest version (James >>> Carman: the user will thank us when they try to use a library that requires >>> the older version, we shouldn't discount this too much. This approach >>> solves the "jar hell" issue) (Sebb: there is no "jar hell" if the versions >>> are binary compatible)? >>> + >>> + For binary-compatible releases, the Java package name should NOT be >>> changed, as that causes unnecessary work for all users. >>> + It follows that the Maven groupID should not be changed either, unless >>> relocation POMs are guaranteed to work. >>> + >>> + As a concrete example, Logging uses the groupId commons-logging. Changing >>> the package name merely to allow the groupId to be changed would cause an >>> awful lot of work, for almost no benefit. >>> + >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
