cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andreas Hartmann <andr...@apache.org>
Subject [C3] Group and artifact IDs (was: [vote] Cocoon 3: Versioning, SVN, Maven, namespaces, issue tracking and CI)
Date Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:45:12 GMT
Hi Reinhard,

Am 21.08.08 23:53, schrieb Reinhard Pötz:
>
> After having already discussed the details, let's make a formal decision
> about versioning, SVN, Maven, namespaces issue tracking and CI for Cocoon 3.

[…]

> Maven
> -------------------------------
> We use functional names for all artifacts:
>
> org.apache.cocoon.pipeline:cocoon-pipeline:3.0.0
> org.apache.cocoon.sitemap:cocoon-sitemap:3.0.0
> org.apache.cocoon.servlet:cocoon-servlet:3.0.0
> org.apache.cocoon.controller:cocoon-controller:3.0.0
> org.apache.cocoon.rest:cocoon-rest:3.0.0
> org.apache.cocoon.stringtemplate:cocoon-stringtemplate:3.0.0
>
> By using the functional name as part of the groupId, Cocoon 2.2 and
> Cocoon 3 can be used together without getting any problems with the
> dependency resolution mechanisms of Maven or Ivy.

I just stumbled upon this again. Our group IDs look verbose and 
redundant at a first glance; from my experience it is rather unusual to 
use distinct group IDs for the individual projects. Would you mind 
elaborating a bit why it helps to have the artifact ID (functional name) 
as part of the group ID? Would the version number not be sufficient for 
the dependency resolution?

TIA!

Best regards,
Andreas



-- 
Andreas Hartmann, CTO
BeCompany GmbH
http://www.becompany.ch
Tel.: +41 (0) 43 818 57 01


Mime
View raw message