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 Thu, 06 May 2010 13:21:22 GMT
On 5/5/10 22:42, Chris Custine wrote:
> Comments inline...
>
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Richard S. Hall<heavy@ungoverned.org>wrote:
> ...
>
>    
>> 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"?
>>
>>      
> I totally agree with you on being consistent, and I guess I hadn't noticed
> that we are diverging from the other Felix projects.  I think when we moved
> Karaf over from ServiceMix Kernel we just kept the naming convention we had
> in place and I'm not sure we thought about it much at the time.  I think
> that alone makes it something we need to consider.
>    

Keep in mind, I wasn't necessarily saying we should change it for Karaf, 
but I was trying to say that I don't think we should perpetuate this to 
other subprojects and/or expand its usage. So, for example, I'd be 
inclined to want to change Gogo to not use this approach.

>> 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.
>>      
>
> I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a fair
> amount of time each day browsing maven repositories.  I call it Maven
> spelunking  ;-)
>    

I guess you are just weird. ;-)

-> richard

> I guess its just a personal thing, but like Guillaume, I just prefer a more
> hierarchical organization as opposed to a flat group with dozens or hundreds
> of artifacts.  I can't come up with a good technical argument for either
> approach, but for the sake of consistency I think we should take a look.
>
>
>    
>> 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