[io] is 2.0 on Maven?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[io] is 2.0 on Maven?

Benson Margulies
I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

Paul Benedict
It's been released. Curiously too, i can't find it in the central Maven repo.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

Patel, Ronak Avinash (US SSA)
I found it; in the Apache repo. I'm using Commons IO 2.0 just fine from there.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 5:38 PM
To: Commons Users List
Subject: Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

It's been released. Curiously too, i can't find it in the central Maven repo.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

James Carman
In reply to this post by Paul Benedict
I wonder if it doesn't auto-sync since we changed the groupId/artifactId?

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Paul Benedict <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It's been released. Curiously too, i can't find it in the central Maven repo.
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

Niall Pemberton
In reply to this post by Benson Margulies
Its been there since the day after it was released - see:

http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/commons-io/commons-io/2.0/

Niall

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>wrote:

> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

James Carman
The confusion is probably because most folks assume we would be using
the new group id which commons io (for some strange reason) did not.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Niall Pemberton
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Its been there since the day after it was released - see:
>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/commons-io/commons-io/2.0/
>
> Niall
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

Niall Pemberton
The reason the existing groupId was used was because it was a compatible
release and so far in Commons we have not collectively or individually
decided to relocate artifacts in that scenario.

Its probably a discussion we should have over on dev@. Although it will
create issues for users relocating all our artifacts (and adding redirection
poms) - it is something that can be resolved by a user (AFAIK they just have
to remove old artifacts from the local repo). I'm starting to think we
should just bite the bullet and do it.

Niall


On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:02 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>wrote:

> The confusion is probably because most folks assume we would be using
> the new group id which commons io (for some strange reason) did not.
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Its been there since the day after it was released - see:
> >
> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/commons-io/commons-io/2.0/
> >
> > Niall
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

James Carman
If we don't change the package names and we do change the maven
"address" (group/artifact), then we run the risk of having two
different versions of the same class on the classpath (unless the
redirect pom gives maven enough information to know that you're really
talking about the same thing).

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Niall Pemberton
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> The reason the existing groupId was used was because it was a compatible
> release and so far in Commons we have not collectively or individually
> decided to relocate artifacts in that scenario.
>
> Its probably a discussion we should have over on dev@. Although it will
> create issues for users relocating all our artifacts (and adding redirection
> poms) - it is something that can be resolved by a user (AFAIK they just have
> to remove old artifacts from the local repo). I'm starting to think we
> should just bite the bullet and do it.
>
> Niall
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:02 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> The confusion is probably because most folks assume we would be using
>> the new group id which commons io (for some strange reason) did not.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Niall Pemberton
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Its been there since the day after it was released - see:
>> >
>> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/commons-io/commons-io/2.0/
>> >
>> > Niall
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

Niall Pemberton
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:29 PM, James Carman
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> If we don't change the package names and we do change the maven
> "address" (group/artifact), then we run the risk of having two
> different versions of the same class on the classpath (unless the
> redirect pom gives maven enough information to know that you're really
> talking about the same thing).

I believe it does, but for example if a put a redirection pom in for
commons-io:commons-io:1.4 to org.apache.commons:commons-io:1.4 the
problem is that people will already have the old 1.4 pom in their
local repo and unless they remove the old artifact, the new
redirection pom will not be downloaded.

Niall

> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The reason the existing groupId was used was because it was a compatible
> > release and so far in Commons we have not collectively or individually
> > decided to relocate artifacts in that scenario.
> >
> > Its probably a discussion we should have over on dev@. Although it will
> > create issues for users relocating all our artifacts (and adding redirection
> > poms) - it is something that can be resolved by a user (AFAIK they just have
> > to remove old artifacts from the local repo). I'm starting to think we
> > should just bite the bullet and do it.
> >
> > Niall
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:02 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>wrote:
> >
> >> The confusion is probably because most folks assume we would be using
> >> the new group id which commons io (for some strange reason) did not.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Niall Pemberton
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Its been there since the day after it was released - see:
> >> >
> >> > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/commons-io/commons-io/2.0/
> >> >
> >> > Niall
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Benson Margulies <[hidden email]
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I can't find common-io 2.0 on Maven. Has it been released?
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

James Carman
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Niall Pemberton
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I believe it does, but for example if a put a redirection pom in for
> commons-io:commons-io:1.4 to org.apache.commons:commons-io:1.4 the
> problem is that people will already have the old 1.4 pom in their
> local repo and unless they remove the old artifact, the new
> redirection pom will not be downloaded.
>

DOH!  Well, that stinks.  I guess we do need to have a discussion on
how we plan to play nice with respect to all of this
version/artifact/group management.  I think the plan of keeping the
artifactId and the package names in sync is a good idea.  But, we need
to be careful about this whole "new" groupId thing.  Should we fire up
a discussion thread on dev@?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

Niall Pemberton
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:13 PM, James Carman
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Niall Pemberton
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I believe it does, but for example if a put a redirection pom in for
>> commons-io:commons-io:1.4 to org.apache.commons:commons-io:1.4 the
>> problem is that people will already have the old 1.4 pom in their
>> local repo and unless they remove the old artifact, the new
>> redirection pom will not be downloaded.
>>
>
> DOH!  Well, that stinks.  I guess we do need to have a discussion on
> how we plan to play nice with respect to all of this
> version/artifact/group management.  I think the plan of keeping the
> artifactId and the package names in sync is a good idea.  But, we need
> to be careful about this whole "new" groupId thing.  Should we fire up
> a discussion thread on dev@?

We could, but I would suggest a slightly different approach. This has
been discussed in the past and from memory there is more than one
approach that could be taken. The problem with starting a discussion
is that the different points people make about how and the pros and
cons get fragmented among a large thread. I think the best thing would
be to start a Wiki page - that way we could collect all the options
and pros/cons in one place. Once we've done that then its likely to
make any discussion much easier and less contentious. I'm very busy
for the next week, so I'm happy to take part in that - but not just at
the moment.

WDYT?

Niall

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

James Carman
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Niall Pemberton
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> We could, but I would suggest a slightly different approach. This has
> been discussed in the past and from memory there is more than one
> approach that could be taken. The problem with starting a discussion
> is that the different points people make about how and the pros and
> cons get fragmented among a large thread. I think the best thing would
> be to start a Wiki page - that way we could collect all the options
> and pros/cons in one place. Once we've done that then its likely to
> make any discussion much easier and less contentious. I'm very busy
> for the next week, so I'm happy to take part in that - but not just at
> the moment.
>
> WDYT?
>

Sounds like a sensible approach to me.  I was thinking the same thing
when we had all of the artifactId discussions just recently.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [io] is 2.0 on Maven?

Jörg Schaible
In reply to this post by Niall Pemberton
Niall Pemberton wrote:

> The reason the existing groupId was used was because it was a compatible
> release and so far in Commons we have not collectively or individually
> decided to relocate artifacts in that scenario.
>
> Its probably a discussion we should have over on dev@. Although it will
> create issues for users relocating all our artifacts (and adding
> redirection poms) - it is something that can be resolved by a user (AFAIK
> they just have to remove old artifacts from the local repo). I'm starting
> to think we should just bite the bullet and do it.

There's no reason for a relocation pom. It will even make things worse,
because suddenly versions are treated as updates which we explicitly
considered not tpo be.

-1 for any relocation POM in commons.

- Jörg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]