felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: Maven groupId question
Date Wed, 05 May 2010 16:41:57 GMT
On 5/5/10 12:40, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:33, Richard S. Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org>  wrote:
>
>    
>> On 5/5/10 12:14, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 18:03, Richard S. Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> On 5/5/10 11:38, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
>>>>> so it's better categorized.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> I think we can't help but categorize our artifacts, since they are long
>>>> names, e.g.:
>>>>
>>>>     org.apache.felix.framework-2.0.5.jar
>>>>
>>>> So all "gogo" JARs are categorized automatically since their JAR files
>>>> all
>>>> of the form:
>>>>
>>>>     org.apache.felix.gogo.*.jar
>>>>
>>>> I guess I am not sure why we worry about how Maven organizes its
>>>> repo...seems like an implementation detail to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Agreed, as is the groupId really.  There are a lot of subprojects in the
>>> ASF
>>> that don't even start with their TLP  ;-)
>>> I think it's just makes things more difficult for users.  I'm not sure we
>>> have anybody out there that downloads all the iPojo jars one by one, so
>>> trying to make those first class citizens does not make sense to me (i'm
>>> referring to the main download page).   I have actaully done the same for
>>> gogo, even if i also think it's useless (just to be consistent and not
>>> start
>>> such discussions).   Adding the 20+ jars from Karaf would not make sense
>>> either imho.
>>>
>>> Subprojects that are composed of multiple bundles are not necesseraly
>>> meant
>>> to be consumer by picking the bundles one by one.   That would anyway
>>> still
>>> be possible because all the bundles are available from maven, and users
>>> that
>>> start doing such things are well aware of that usually.
>>>
>>> So really, I think subprojects should have more of their own identity.
>>>   The
>>> fact that they belong to a given TLP is mostly irrelevant for the
>>> end-user.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> To me it isn't really about issues of identity or even organization, it is
>> only about specifying dependencies in pom files and know which groupId to
>> use...I like to remember as few things as possible. Clearly, though, it's
>> not the end of the world either way since a little poking around will help
>> you figure out the groupId if you get it wrong.
>>
>> As far as the end user is concerned, all they see is the name of the JAR
>> file and they don't have any idea about groupIds etc., so it doesn't really
>> help them in anyway.
>>
>>      
> Most of the users of the projects i've been working on the past years use
> maven, so they do know about groupIds and artifactIds.
>    

But you certainly can't be arguing that we expect users to know Maven to 
understand the structure of our projects! :-D

-> richard

>
>    
>> Regarding trying to view sub-groupIds as being for collections of modules
>> that aren't intended to be used independently. I understand what you are
>> saying and in terms of Karaf in perhaps makes sense, but in general i'd hope
>> that people design all of their modules with the idea that they can reused
>> independently in new contexts. For example, the simple Gogo commands module
>> I just committed, if the RFC actually becomes an OSGi spec, then they it
>> would work with any impl, not just Gogo.
>>
>> At any rate, I'd argue against using sub-groupIds just from a conceptual
>> overhead perspective and will likely continue to not use them myself since I
>> don't really see any added value.
>>
>> ->  richard
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>>>
>>>        
>>>> ->   richard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>> I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     org.apache.felix.gogo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While most other subprojects are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     org.apache.felix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under
the
>>>>>> assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
>>>>>> seem
>>>>>> necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does
make
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for
a
>>>>>> given
>>>>>> subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more
>>>>>> consistent
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits
of
>>>>>> having separate groupIds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ->    richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>      
>
>    

Mime
View raw message