Le lun. 19 déc. 2022 à 00:17, Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2022, 23:06 Gilles Sadowski, <gillese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Le dim. 18 déc. 2022 à 23:10, Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com> a
> > écrit :
> > >
> > > I think the name for the distribution archive is collected in:
> > >
> > > dist-archive/src/assembly/[bin|src].xml
> > >
> > > These use ${project.artifactId}-${project.version} by specifying the
> > > <baseDirectory> tag.
> > >
> > > So renaming the artifactId for the dist-archive in the pom.xml from
> > > commons-math to commons-math4 fixes this.Commit e2dd8f1a0d559967a0f9a3cd538b96d66561adc6 (in "master"). > > > > Thus the "mistake" is in the definition of <artifactId> in the > > "dist-archive" module: By the current convention, it must be > > "commons-math4". [Similarly to the <artifactId> of module > > "commons-math-core" being "commons-math4-core".] > > > > Now I wonder: Is this distinction (with or without the "4") really > > necessary in what the elements are used for? > > E.g. for the file names referred to in the previous message: > > commons-math-4.0-beta1-bin.tar.gz > > vs > > commons-math4-4.0-beta1-bin.tar.gz > > why is the latter better than the former? > > IOW, the "4" is redundant since it is present in the "version" > > string. So why keep track, in the POM files, of distinct strings > > "commons-math" and "commons-math4" if wherever they are > > used, the "version" string is also used? > > > > Hence, could we adopt a new, less error-prone, convention that > > will be simpler: <artifactId> is always composed of the string > > "commons", a hyphen, and the name of the component, > > irrespective of version? > > > > > I don't know the history here but looking at commons Lang the download for > the 2.x line does not have lang2 in the name but for the 3.x line it does > have lang3. > > https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-lang/download_lang.cgi > > I thought the artifact id was used in commons to match the package name. That is the reason, indeed. > So > you can import math3 and math4 artifacts. So it is important for jar > artifacts. Ah, yes. > > But for the distribution module having the math4 is redundant, but also > harmless to keep it included. Sure. And if the <artefactId> must be different (so that several "different" libraries can be fetched through maven), then it is better to be consistent in the naming; thus arriving at the current convention (even though it is redundant in the case of the distribution files). Thanks, Gilles >> [...] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
