In a POM-file i found a "maven-ear-plugin" configuration that uses "defaultJavaBundleDir", but it seems that "defaultLibBundleDir" is the correct (according to the schema and various documentation).
The Maven POM schema is version 4.0.0.
Is this a remnant from an older version? I couldn't find an explanation for this change, and would like to make sure we are using the correct notation reliably.
In a POM-file i found a "maven-ear-plugin" configuration that uses "defaultJavaBundleDir", but it seems that "defaultLibBundleDir" is the correct (according to the schema and various documentation).
Actually, the configuration element of a plugin can contain anything. So <foo>bar</foo> is valid (and will just be "ignored" by a given plugin if it's an unknown parameter).
Is this a remnant from an older version? I couldn't find an explanation for this change, and would like to make sure we are using the correct notation reliably.
This change has been introduced for the resolution of MEAR-46 as we can read in the (approximative) comment of the svn commit: r471886.
Added defaultLibDir as an alias of defaultJavaBundleDir which is more understable
If you look closer at the diff, you'll see that defaultLibBundleDir is the new name of the parameter and that the old defaultJavaBundleDir is declared as an alias.
So both work, both do the same thing, but only the "new" one is documented in the parameters list of the ear mojo. You can safely change to defaultLibBundleDir and this will make things more clear.
Also worth noting is that the Maven Integration for WTP eclipse plugin (m2e-wtp) only supports the documented defaultLibBundleDir option, not the older defaultJavaBundleDir.
https://github.com/eclipse/m2e.wtp/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=defaultLibBundleDir
https://github.com/eclipse/m2e.wtp/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=defaultJavaBundleDir
Related
I just upgraded to the newest version of Pharo Smalltalk. Before doing so, I "File-outed" a package from my old version called My-Pharo - a package I use for various configurations and customizations of Pharo itself, most notably a class to put back "Workspace" in the main menu. I then "File-ined/Installed" the file into my new version.
When I checked the SystemBrowser, I had correctly gotten the My-Pharo package, but I'd also picked up a package called My-Pharo-Manifest... I see My-Pharo-Manifest actually is part of my File-Out, and seems to contain the package-comment for My-Pharo .
What is this manifest, what is it's purpose, and how should it be used? Is there something I can/should do to "merge" the manifest (ie. the comment) back into the My-Pharo class? Should I move the content of My-Pharo-Manifest somewhere else? ...Or is my best bet to simply delete the Manifest-package, and re-write the package-comment for My-Pharo?
I'm not a seasoned Pharo developer, I use it just time to time. I'll try to answer your question from the source code. For more detailed answer you would have to get it from the ones that are actually do the development of Pharo.
What is manifest?
Manifest contains package metadata.
what is it's purpose?
The purpose is to make life easier for the SmallLint (Smalltalk Code Critics). It is there for its speedup, because without the manifest the SmallLint would have to check the rule results all the time. Package metadata helps in managing false positives and/or TODOs.
packages: If you check for the where is the #hasPackageNamed: used, you will find out that it is at SmallLintManifestChecker>>manifestBuilderOfPackage:.
methods: if you search for #hasManifestFor: SmallLintManifestChecker>>manifestBuilderOfMethod:
Is there something I can/should do to "merge" the manifest (ie. the
comment) back into the My-Pharo class? Should I move the content of
My-Pharo-Manifest somewhere else?
I would just leave it be. It helps the SmallLint to do its job.
I'm looking for a formal definition of version number formats for .NET Core project.json files.
version
Visual studio creates a default version number of "1.0.0-*". I would love for this to mean the * gets updated on successive builds (it doesn't). The build version number is 1.0.0. What does the * mean and what are the legal possibilities?
dependencies
I expected the dependency numbering to follow the nuget versioning rules given that KPM is basically a nuget front-end, but it doesn't appear to support bracket numbering (eg "[1,2)") - I get "not a valid version string" when I try anything other than a blank or x.x-* format.
Outside of the source, does anyone have a link to a formal definition?
I'm not sure what's wrong with looking into the source for a definition. I think that's the most accurate place to search, especially now that vNext is hosted on GitHub.
Looking at the exception described, we're pointed to SemanticVersion.cs.
In the method TryParseInternal, it's fairly obvious why you're running into issues when attempting to declare min/max versions that way. There is simply no handling for [,] or (,) built into that method.
If we look into the regular NuGet version specification, it's obvious that TryParseVersionSpec does have this handling built in.
As for documentation specifying acceptable formats, you'll probably have to wait until it's out of CTP status. If you believe it's an issue, you should document it in GitHub. The contributors are very responsive to these types of issues. Personally I'm not sure if there's a need for setting a maximum version of a dependency when it's deployed with your build.
I am trying to set conflict managers in Ivy, but I can't find a concrete example of how to set them. For example, to set the "strict" manager, what would this look like?
<conflict-managers>
???
</conflict-managers>
<rant>
Yeah, isn't Ivy documentation a hoot! I mean, does it have to be well organized and complete? Does it really have to make sense. I mean, it's not like my job depends upon it!
Wait a second, it does...
</rant>
Sorry, I have to get the state of Ivy documentation off my chest. It makes Maven documentation look wonderful in comparison.
The best book on Ivy I've found is Manning's Ant in Action. It's a seven year old book that's out of print (but is still available as an ebook. If it wasn't for this book, (which is using Ivy 1.4), I would have been completely lost. Unfortunately, it doesn't delve deep into the Ivy settings.
There is a listing of all of the possible conflict managers buried deep in the Ivy documentation.
all this conflicts manager resolve conflicts by selecting all revisions. Also called the NoConflictManager, it doesn't evict any modules.
latest-time this conflict manager selects only the 'latest' revision, latest being defined as the latest in time. Note that latest in time is costly to compute, so prefer latest-revision if you can.
latest-revision this conflict manager selects only the 'latest' revision, latest being defined by a string comparison of revisions.
latest-compatible this conflict manager selects the latest version in the conflicts which can result in a compatible set of dependencies. This means that in the end, this conflict manager does not allow any conflicts (similar to the strict conflict manager), except that it follows a best effort strategy to try to find a set of compatible modules (according to the version constraints)
strict this conflict manager throws an exception (i.e. causes a build failure) whenever a conflict is found.
I haven't played around with them, but I believe you simply do the following in the ivy-settings.xml:
<conflict-managers>
<latest-revision/>
</conflict-managers>
You can also define conflict management in your ivy.xml too which might be a bit more practical since it can be defined on a module-by-module basis.
Of course a few examples would have gone a long way with this, but the Ivy documentation doesn't provide many.
The best book on Ivy I've found is Manning's Ant in Action.
That was me. Ivy has moved on a lot since then, and so have builds
One issue with the ivy conflict managers is that it differs from maven, whose policy is "shallowest on the graph first", that picks the closest one. This is good if you explicitly ask for a version, bad if you have >1 transitive dependency when "closest" isn't what you want.
With ivy you can hit the strict resolve which says "you have to explicitly resolve every single conflict in your dependencies". This adds extra work # build time, but has a key result: if you explicitly declare the versions of things you want, you are now in control of what you have in your classpath.
The Ivy reference documentation strictly follows the XML tag structure of the ivy.xml and ivy-settings.xml files. You are expected to extract the information required directly from the document structure.
Decoding from the Ivy docs:
The conflict-managers tag is for declaring what conflict managers a project may use and configuring them if they accept configuration, not for setting the conflict manager to use.
<conflict-managers>
<latest-cm name="mylatest-conflict-manager" latest="my-latest-strategy"/>
<compatible-cm name="my-latest-compatible-conflict-manager" latest="my-latest-strategy"/>
</conflict-managers>
The settings tag has an attribute for choosing the default conflict manager:
<settings defaultConflictManager="strict"/>
Or in an ivy.xml:
<dependencies>
<dependency.../>
<conflict manager="strict">
</dependencies>
Note that most of the conflict managers are more liberal in their interpretation of your intentions than you would expect. Two examples:
* Branches are considered irrelevant, if a dependency is available on two branches the "latest" family of resolvers will pick the latest available from either.
* Both the "latest-time" and "latest-revision" resolvers ignore version constraints except to set boundaries on the matching space. e.g. if a depends on b-1.0 and c-1.0 but c-1.0 depends on b-5.0 then you will get b-5.0 despite it not meeting the constraint requested.
I assume your need is result of discovering one of these design flaws.
I have been reading about semver. I really like the general idea. However, when it comes to putting it to practice, I feel like I'm missing some key pieces of information. I'm not sure where the name of a library exists, or what to do with file variants. For instance, is the file name something like [framework]-[semver].min.js? Are there popular JavaScript frameworks that use semver? I don't know of any.
Thank you!
Let me try to explain you.
If you are not developing a library that you like to keep for years to come, don't bother about it.. If you prefer to version every development, read the following.
Suppose you are an architect or developer developing a library that is aimed to be used by hundreds of developers over time, in a distributed manner. You really need to be cautious of what you are doing, what your developers are adding (so interesting features that grabs your attention to push those changes in the currently distributed file). You dont know how do you tell your library users to upgrade. In what scenarios? People followed some sort of versioning, and interestingly, their thoughts all are working fine.
Then why do you need semver ?
It says "There should be a concrete specification for anything for a group of people to follow anything collectively, even though they know it in their minds". With that thought, they made a specification. They have made their observation and clubbed all the best practices in the world about versioning software mainly, and given a single website where they listed them. that is semver.org. Its main principles are :
Imagine you have already released your library with a version "lib.1.0.98", Now follow these rules for subsequent development.
Let your library is bundled and named as xyz and,
Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, (like xyz.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH), increment the:
1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes
(existing code of users of your library breaks if they adapt this without code changes in their programs),
2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner
(existing code works, and some improvements in performance and features also), and
3. PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
Additional labels for pre-release and build metadata are available as extensions to the MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format.
If you are not a developer or are not in a position to develop a library of a standard, you need not worry at all about semver.
Finally, the famous [d3] library follows this practice.
Semantic Versioning only defines how to name your versions. It does not specify what you will do with your version number afterwards. You can put the version numbers in package names, you can store it in a properties file inside your application, or just publish it in a wiki. All those options are opened to discussion and not part of the problem space addressed by SemVer.
semver is used by npm and bower (and perhaps some other tools) for dependency management. Using semver it is possible to decide which versions of which packages to use if multiple libraries used depend on the same library.
As others have said, semantic versioning is a standard versioning scheme that tells your users which versions of your library should be compatible with each other, and which ones are not.
The idea, is to be able to give your users more confidence that it's safe to upgrade to a newer patch/version, because it's tried, tested, and true to being backwards compatible with the previous version (minor increments). That is, perceptively that's what your telling your users.
As far as tooling goes, I don't do much in javascript, but I typically let my build server handle stamping my assemblies etc with the correct version. I have a static major number I upgrade whenever I make breaking changes, a static minor number I upgrade everytime I add new features, and an auto-incrementing Patch number whenever I checkin bug fixes.
Especially if this is a javascript library you plan to share on a public repository of some kind (nuget, gem, etc) you probably want some for of automated packaging system, and you put the logic in there for specifying your version number (in the package meta data, in the name of the javascript file, which is typically the standard I've seen).
Take a look at sbt which is the Scala Build Tool. In it, we write dependencies like this:
val scalatest = "org.scalatest" %% "core" % "2.1.7" "test"
val jodatime = "org.joda" % "jodatime" % "1.4.5"
Wherein the operator %% means "the current version of Scala that you're building." Packaging things in this language generally create JAR files with the name like this <my project>_<scala version>_<library version>.jar which is quite handy for semantically naming things automagically. The % operator can be interpreted as "don't version this part."
That said, this resulted from the fact that the same library compiled to different Scala versions were not binary compatible with each other. So it was more as a result of, rather than a conscious design choice, the binary incompatibilities.
I've a repository containing snapshot artifacts with timestamps.
I want to create an assembly, that contains the dependencies. This works fine. But the artifact names contains the timestamp. So i wonder how to remove the timestamp from filename for the assembly only.
I've used this dependencySet:
<outputFileNameMapping>${artifact.artifactId}-${artifact.version}.${artifact.extension}</outputFileNameMapping>
But version seams to contain already the timestamp. So is there any chance to get a 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT instead of 1.1.1-20100323.071348-182?
I'm using version 2.2-beta-4 of maven-assembly-plugin.
Could you try the following for the outputFileNameMapping:
${artifactId}-${baseVersion}.${extension}
According to issues like MASSEMBLY-67, MASSEMBLY-91:
Using ${baseVersion} for cases where you want to preserve the -SNAPSHOT naming, the plugin retains the ability to use ${version} for the timestamp-buildnumber naming, which is useful for describing the exact library version included in the assembly.
Update: After feedback from the OP, the exact syntax is (wasn't totally sure of this):
${artifact.artifactId}-${artifact.baseVersion}.${artifact.extension}
I faced a similar issue when trying to build a bundle with the assembly plugin which contained a folder with the version number (I'm packaging WSDLs and XSDs).
The workaround I found is quite simple, I put the actual version number in a property (e.g. 1.0), which makes it available in the bundle.xml file for the assembly plugin, and set the pom version's to:
<version>${service.version}-SNAPSHOT</version>
This way the content of my package isn't influenced by the SNAPSHOT marker, in particular it isn't modified when doing the release.