We are having a discussion in ARQ-200 about how to incorporate the supported container version into an integration. The discussion made us aware of the fact that ShrinkWrap doesn't include the version of the container it's linking against in the extension name at all. I think at the very least we should include the major version number in the extension name, introducing a new version number only when there is an incompatible API change in the container.

When selecting an integration, you choose the integration with the highest container version that isn't greater than the container you are targeting. In other words, if the following two ShrinkWrap extensions were available:

• extension-jetty-6
• extension-jetty-8

You could use extension-jetty-6 for Jetty >= 6.0 and Jetty < 8.0, but use extension-jetty-8 for Jetty 8.0 and up. The extension-jetty-8 would exist for good reason.

I propose the following name changes for integrations I've recently worked on:

• extension-jetty => extension-jetty-6.1
• extension-tomcat => extension-tomcat-6

The minor version is only included if the .0 release is not compatible. That's why it's extension-jetty-6.1 and not extension-jetty-6 (we would need a new implementation for Jetty 6.0). Basically, be as non-specific as possible.

(I'm open to including .0 as well for clarity, i.e., extension-tomcat-6.0).