We will continue to post nightly builds w/ a consistent file name, and
will occasionally archive important builds. But, as shown in maven now,
none of them will simply be called jsftemplating.jar. So don't worry...
this isn't changing. :)
Ken
Karam Singh wrote:
> Even though its good to know the version from jar file name, it is a
> hassle to reconfigure netbeans etc for the new jar file and also you
> have to add the new jars to the repository (say I have a svn
> repository for my project, I have to svn delete the old file and svn
> add the new file). So I am all for using a consistent jar file name.
>
> thanks
> Karam
>
> Ken Paulsen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Anissa,
>>
>> You understood what I meant. None of the GlassFish jars in the
>> GF/lib directory have version #'s in their name. The webui-jsf.jar
>> doesn't. Adding a YYYYMMDD to the jar name also would require
>> packager changes each time we update (not sure if that applies to v3
>> or not). I just like having a consistent name.
>>
>> However, if you feel we should have a different jar file name, we can
>> do that. I'm not strongly opposed to it. :)
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Anissa Lam wrote:
>>> Ken,
>>> I am not sure if i like to 'hide' the version # from the name of the
>>> jar.
>>> I prefer to see jsftemplating-1.1.jar instead of
>>> jsftemplating.jar and then have to look at the version in the
>>> Manifest file.
>>> It seems that all other jars in the repository has the version # in
>>> the jar name.
>>> Do i misunderstand what you proposing ?
>>>
>>> thanks.
>>> Anissa.
>>>
>>> Senthil Chidambaram wrote:
>>>> Ken,
>>>> Sorry forgot to send my build changes for review. I'm attaching the
>>>> changes I've made in jsft build.xml file, please make sure the
>>>> attributes I've added are correct, and if you want to add more let
>>>> me know. Once the changes are approved, I'll check it in.
>>>>
>>>> The change is for adding version id to the manifest file in
>>>> YYYYDDMM format
>>>>
>>>> thx
>>>> Senthil
>>>>
>>>> Ken Paulsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see json.jar in the java.net repositories anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> The JSFT-dynafaces.jar file already had a version number as part
>>>>> of its name (0.1), not sure if you want to change that or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The JSFT jar file, should have version 1.2... and I'd prefer we
>>>>> just call it jsftemplating.jar if you can get the correct version
>>>>> # to appear in the Manifest file (1.2_YYYYMMDD). Senthil, we
>>>>> talked about this... were you able to make it work? If not, we
>>>>> can put it as the proposed name for now (although w/ 1.2 instead
>>>>> of 1.0).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> Anissa Lam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Senthil,
>>>>>> Here is the list of jars that needs to be published to maven
>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>> Since we are using woodstock 4.0.2, we can use this release
>>>>>> number for those that doesn't have a release # assoicate with it.
>>>>>> I just not sure about json.jar, it probably is available
>>>>>> somewhere, but i can't find it. If you know of any that is
>>>>>> available, i believe we can just use that one. Ken ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *WoodStock 4.0.2 release:*
>>>>>> dataprovider.jar dojo-0.4.1-ajax.jar prototype-1.5.0.jar
>>>>>> webui-jsf-suntheme.jar
>>>>>> webui-jsf.jar json.jar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *JMaki: * jsfcompounds-0.0.2.jar
>>>>>> ajax-wrapper-comp-1.0.2.jar The following jars is
>>>>>> already available, so no need to do anything.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Apache*
>>>>>> commons-io-1.2.jar commons-fileupload-1.1.1.jar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *JSFTemplating:*
>>>>>> jsftemplating-dynafaces-0.1-1.0.jar
>>>>>> jsftemplating-1.0.jar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>> Anissa.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>