directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ersin Er <>
Subject Naming conventions for artifactIds, groupIds and how this relates to site generation
Date Sun, 22 Jan 2006 19:21:22 GMT
Hi all,

We currently use artifactIds like package names. For example we have:


(and we have no groupId for this definition, so it's inherited from
parent which is

However I think we should have:


This allows a better repository structure which looks like the
standard Java library layout where groupIds are like package names and
artifactIds are like class names.

Another income using this approach is that it allows finer site
generation. m2 uses artifactIds for generating subproject directories.
This was we do not overside site deploy urls for all subprojects.

The only problem with this approach is the name of the distribution
jar files. With the approach I propose we get:

asn1-<version>.jar in org/apache/directory/asn1/<version>

instead of:<version>.jar or org.apache.-<version>.jar

So it may be best to use shortest explanotory name possible like:

apacheds-plugin or apacheds-maven-plugin (not maven-directory-plugin
(which is an internal convention of maven project I think) ?)
protocol-kerberos (not apacheds-protocol-kerberos ?)

It this is still not explanatory then I offer more. We may keep
package name artifactIds which causes other problems.

And also maven conventions favor the final approach.

As the final note consider that eclipse project generated by maven
take the name from artifactIds. (However IMO they should have taken
the name field in the pom.)

And I still see chance for the first scheme I offered (single level
artifactId like core), please also consider that one.


And I think Brett may have good advices for us while he knows the
conventions and incomes best.


View raw message