activiti-juel jar versioning

[gnodet]

While adding some OSGi metadata to activiti-juel, I ran into the problem that this jar isn't versioned as a snapshot, but the version is the one derived from juel.  I don't think it works as no modification should be made to a non snapshot jar.
A solution would be to just drop the original 2.2.1 version (as no one really cares if we version it along with all the other activiti jars).    Another one could be to add the version of the original jar in the artifact id:
   groupId = org.activiti
   artifactId = activiti-juel-2.2.1
   version = 5.0.rc1-SNAPSHOT

I think the first one is the easiest and we can just add a comment in the pom to indicate which version was used as the original juel source code.

[farrukh_najmi]

Somewhat peripheral question that I was curious about…

Why did activiti choose to fork the http://juel.sourceforge.net/ project rather than just using it?

[gnodet]

Yeah, I'm not sure either.  The <description> tag in the pom says "Adapter version of JUEL without dependencies to javax.el".  That just explains what has been done, not really why.
The commit log says: "ACT-189 activiti-juel added, based on Apache-licensed JUEL 2.2.1 to allow method-invocations with params in expressions, even in old EL-environments" which provides a bit more information.
But not being on EL expert, I can't provide more information …

Anyway, unless someone shouts quickly, I'll change the version number, as having non snapshot in a tree is really bad (nearly as bad as having SNAPSHOT in a tag).

[tombaeyens]

http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/ACT-189 provides more info as well on the reasoning.

Guillaume, what version number do you want to update?

[gnodet]

The current trunk uses a non SNAPSHOT (2.2.1) version for activiti-juel module.
I've changed it to use 5.0.rc1-SNAPSHOT.
The very reason is that while transforming all modules into OSGi bundles, I need to update the activiti-juel one, which becomes a problem because it's not a snapshot.
I'm happy to change to something, provided it's a snapshot.

[tombaeyens]

ok makes sense.

i'm considering to include the juel classes in the activiti-engine module/jar.  that might also solve the issue.

[gnodet]

I'm not sure what the benefit would be.  If we want an overall jar, we should have a separate jar which would include activiti-pvm, activiti-engine, activiti-juel, and maybe others too.  The purpose would be ease of consumption for some users.
But I think keeping separate maven modules makes sense, as these are clearly unrelated.