commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henning Schmiedehausen <>
Subject Re: [VFS] Maven groupId problem?
Date Mon, 08 Nov 2010 03:08:51 GMT
I don't get it. Sorry. :-)

So maven1 kind of added ad-hoc groups. They chose to use the same as
the artifactId as the groupId when they constituted that back in the
maven1 days. That turned out to be suboptimal. But some artifacts that
were in the maven1 tree (most of commons) ended up in the commons-*

Pretty much everyone agrees that this was a mistake and these
artifacts should have been put into org.apache.commons. However, they
were not. Why should be stay locked into these mistakes forever?

Maven offers a relocation mechanism. So we use it and put the new
releases into the more sane location which is
org.apache.commons:commons-vfs. Life goes on afterwards. Relocation
helps people to transition.

I love backwards compatibility as the next guy, but we do have to move
on at some point. JDK 1.3 and Maven 1 are gone for five+ years now.
Everyone who is still using them will not upgrade anyway. Not
leveraging what exists in 2010 seems to wrong to me. Let's acknowledge
mistakes of the past and move on.

+1 to org.apache.commons:* for all new releases. +1 to "JDK5+ (even
though I would prefer JDK6+) for all new releases.


On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 18:48, James Carman <> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Henning Schmiedehausen
> <> wrote:
>> This is an old, buggy location and it should be cleaned up over time.
>> Being locked into the mistakes of the past because some tool can not
>> understand it, doesn't seem to be reasonable to me.
> The cat's sort of out of the bag now.  It pisses people (well at least
> it does me) off when you start moving stuff around on them.  All of a
> sudden, you start seeing "blah blah moved to blah blah" in your build
> output.  VFS apparently wasn't a Maven 2 project at the time it was
> released.  The source distribution doesn't contain a pom.xml file.
> I'm more worried about how the tag is out of sync with the "official"
> released source.  That's not good.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message