From dev-return-38989-apmail-directory-dev-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org Wed Aug 31 08:58:34 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FC677110 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:58:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51626 invoked by uid 500); 31 Aug 2011 08:58:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 51422 invoked by uid 500); 31 Aug 2011 08:58:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org Received: (qmail 51409 invoked by uid 99); 31 Aug 2011 08:58:18 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:58:18 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.215.50] (HELO mail-ew0-f50.google.com) (209.85.215.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:58:11 +0000 Received: by ewy10 with SMTP id 10so250741ewy.37 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:57:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8WXIL8WxdAqPWNY2V8kZWhO9VPuZgnXF0AuFdWjoi1s=; b=gKAwB6TvNnkSZD3SHl33extUK2dupCsOHtJSbYNUFR2R5sxiMIZNHEFUt3wT3zCNhr 0WupzZupdmI8u/0ufLHcVLPk7bIFVnBYxZ/GDkR9AUk7EozMhna+ybrhmptgR6sXQygw dQ46d4hzXDIn5O4HzwEyKejvGSSgDIVbOz/jw= Received: by 10.213.28.10 with SMTP id k10mr125659ebc.21.1314781070475; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emmanuel-lecharnys-MacBook-Pro.local (ran75-1-78-192-106-184.fbxo.proxad.net [78.192.106.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v2sm4230926eej.34.2011.08.31.01.57.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E5DF78B.7020205@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:57:47 +0200 From: Emmanuel Lecharny Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Apache Directory Developers List Subject: Re: Coding rules, some more things to discuss References: <4E5CE665.2030008@gmail.com> <07AF0E26-47A5-4801-9050-6AB00992954A@marcelot.net> <4E5DEBCA.1010505@apache.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 8/31/11 10:33 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote: > Hi Felix, > > On 31 août 2011, at 10:07, Felix Knecht wrote: > >> On 08/31/2011 09:08 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote: >>> One more thing I'd like to add to pom.xml guidelines, I really like when dependencies are ordered in alphabetical order. >>> In Studio, we deal with a lot of dependencies for each project (mostly Eclipse dependencies + a few others) and having them ordered REALLY helps when looking for something, IMO. >> I absolutely agree. On which tag (groupId | artifactId) would you order them? No matter wich one we take it should be the first tag after, so for artifactId it would be >> >> >> shared-ldap-model >> org.apache.directory.shared >> >> >> Ordering by groupId would make it possible to group then under a common "label". > My personal preference would be to keep the structure of a dependency element the way it is used at the moment (groupId tag first then and artifactId in second), like this: > > ${groupId} > ${artifactId} > > > I would order dependencies by groupId first and then, in the case of an identical groupId, I would order them via their artifactId. > > That's why I think we should stick with the order groupId, artifactId. > But I might be wrong. ;) I'm with you here. Order should be by GroupId then ArtifactId. -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com