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 21:44:00 GMT
On 5/5/10 15:27, Chris Custine wrote:
>> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
>> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
>> artifacts under that groupId?
>>      
>
> They would have to control Apache DNS servers!  :-)
>
> Seriously though, I see merits in both sides of this conversation, but the
> fact is that each project (and in this case, maybe even sub-projects) has
> different needs.  Many other projects employ a combination of the 2
> approaches talked about here and there are no real hard and fast
> requirements for maven groupId naming.  The Maven developers themselves
> don't even strictly follow the groupId == reverse domain recommendation. (
> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/wagon/)  IMHO that is an
> oversimplified interpretation of what is said on that page.
>
> So I don't think there is a right or wrong answer.  Must we really spend
> time pursuing these pedantic discussions when there is little or no
> constructive outcome no matter what the end result is?
>    

I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so 
far the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the 
discussion has given cause for concern.

For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each 
subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId 
just because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic 
when trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to 
have some understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I 
create a groupId of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to 
give it "its own identity"?

Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their 
own groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are 
browsing a Maven repo. This is a pointless detail...if they change how 
they store artifacts in the next release of Maven then all of this extra 
meaning people are conferring upon it will be lost.

-> richard
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Custine
> FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
> Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
> Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
>
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo<sahoo@sun.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>> AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
>> someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish some
>> artifacts under that groupId?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sahoo
>>
>>
>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly controlled.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo<Sahoo@sun.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls
>>>> the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I
>>>> would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
>>>> subprojects.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sahoo
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
>>>>
>>>> Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
>>>>    org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet<gnodet@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
>>>> so it's better categorized.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>      
>    

Mime
View raw message