On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thilo Goetz wrote: > > > 3) IMO its better if the jars include the version number - which they > > > do for the maven repo, but not the ones in the binary distro > > > > > > > I personally agree with you, but we had a long discussion about > > this and the "no version numbers in jar names" faction carried > > the day. I believe the main reason is that it makes upgrading > > to a new version easier, or switching between versions for > > testing purposes. > > > We actually have a Jira issue that may address this, for the next release: > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-857 >
Among the UIMA committers, I'm the main proponent of the "no version numbers in jar names". Jar file names that change in each version have always driven me crazy because they force users to update their classpaths when they upgrade their UIMA version. A lot of tools just don't handle this well - Eclipse is one example, AFAIK it doesn't give you any way to use wildcards in classpath so as to pick up any version. I don't see UIMA-857 as a solution, because UIMA is an embeddable component and people want to take our jar files and add them to their classpaths using typical Java means. I personally wouldn't be happy relying on some special UIMA mechanism for finding its jar files. -Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
