commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <>
Subject Re: [all] change group id? [WAS Re: [logging] RC on ibiblio ?]
Date Sat, 13 May 2006 23:21:31 GMT
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 11:30 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On 5/13/06, robert burrell donkin <>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 08:51 +0200, Nicolas De Loof wrote:
> > > I agree about NOT making non-final jars available on ibiblio (httpclient
> > > beeing an exception)
> > > So could the next RC be uploaded to
> > > ?
> > >
> > > Please also consider using the new groupId recommandation for apache
> > > commons-X : org.apache.commons.X
> >
> > should we make this change for the whole of the commons?
> I would be in favour of that. The sooner all ASF projects use a consistent
> groupId scheme, the better.
> how much hassle would this change be for downstream consumers?
> Virtually none, as long as we make the change obvious, e.g. by including the
> groupId and artifactId in release announcements and download pages, or
> somewhere of that sort.

What happens if someone has a project that has the following

  project depends on A, B
  A depends on group=commons-lang, artifact=commons-lang
  B depends on group=org.apache.commons.lang, artifact=commons-lang

Is maven smart enough to avoid putting lang in the dependencies twice?

There is a special POM entry that can indicate a "relocation" of the
target. I don't know the details of how this works though.

In general, though, I'm in favour of the move to a properly structured
group-id. As maven gets more popular (the repo gains more entries), the
existing flattish structure becomes harder to manage. And from the
volume of messages on the maven lists, its popularity is growing fast..



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message