Apache CXF configurations

[Zac Jacobson]

I'm looking at contributing Apache CXF 3.0 packaging to the roundup, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insight into how the current 2.4.1 configuration came to be defined? They don't seem to obviously correspond to maven modules or groups of maven modules, or groups of dependencies.

Thanks.

[Archie Cobbs]

See https://code.google.com/p/ivyroundup/issues/detail?id=150 for a history FWIW.

Probably could use a revamp.

-AC

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Zac Jacobson <pie...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm looking at contributing Apache CXF 3.0 packaging to the roundup, but I'm wondering if anyone has any insight into how the current 2.4.1 configuration came to be defined? They don't seem to obviously correspond to maven modules or groups of maven modules, or groups of dependencies.

Thanks.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ivyroundup" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ivyroundup+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ivyro...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ivyroundup.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Archie L. Cobbs

[Zac Jacobson]

Oh, I mean't 2.6.1. Anyway, my plan is to make a 2.6.14 package that would be just an update of the existing 2.6.1 packaging because there are some security issues in 2.6.1.

I do want to be moving to version 3 though, that seems like it will be more of a revamping effort to make that available.

[Zac Jacobson]

What would be better for defining dependencies: picking the closest dep that's in the roundup without going under what the maven module is saying, or using the maven-specified version as the bottom of a range?

eg

if cxf wants joda 2.2, but the roundup has 2.1. and 2.3, should I specify

rev="2.3"

rev="[2.2,)" or even rev="[2.2,3.0["

I'm leaning toward the first one, I guess.

[Archie Cobbs]

Kindof a judgement call. Use whatever you think will work based on documented requirements.

Typically using a minor version number increase newer won't hurt.

-AC

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ivyroundup" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ivyroundup+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ivyro...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ivyroundup.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Archie L. Cobbs

[Mark Thomas]

i use ranges personally as i don't want to box-in users to specific versions.

Regards,

Mark Thomas
spatialguru.net@gmail.com
205.529.9013

"Commit to the Lord whatever you do,
    and your plans will succeed." - Proverbs 16:3

[Archie Cobbs]

The other good thing about ranges is that if the range is not perfect (e.g., too wide) it's easy for a developer to fix by specifying exactly the version they want to use.

-Archie

[Zac Jacobson]

I've attached a patch for 2.6.14 to issue 502

https://code.google.com/p/ivyroundup/issues/detail?id=502

On Friday, June 13, 2014 3:12:15 PM UTC-7, Zac Jacobson wrote: