On Sep 6, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> Yes we could change the project names to distinguish. Since all
> the eclipse plugins start with org.eclipse.*, should we avoid using
> another organization name in the title?, what about....
>
> org.apache.geronimo.tools.core?
>
> If having both eclipse and apache in the plugin name isn't a
> problem then we can go with eclipse.
There's no problems in using eclipse in the namespace as well as
apache...
>
> Or another idea would be to change the artifact's groupID to from
> "geronimo" to "geronimo-devtools" same as the subproject name so
> that they are distinusished in the repo.
yes, we should certainly do that or actually help keep good practice...
org.apache.geronimo.devtools
>
> Sachin
>
> Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>> Sachin Patel wrote:
>>
>>> Rather then throwing everything in the "eclipse-plugin" folder
>>> could we organize the contents down into the following structure?
>>>
>>> A .../trunk/modules/eclipse/plugins/ folder that contains the
>>> following projects...
>>>
>>> org.apache.geronimo.core
>>> org.apache.geronimo.ui
>>> org.apache.geronimo.deployment.model
>>> org.apache.geronimo.runtime.v1
>>>
>>> A .../trunk/modules/eclipse/features/ folder that contains the
>>> following projects...
>>>
>>> org.apache.geronimo.feature
>>>
>>> Then the .../trunk/modules/eclipse/ folder itself would contain
>>> everything else like the top level maven.xml, the "assembly"
>>> project I'm about to submit, a project containing parent POM's,
>>> etc...
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do we need to avoid confusion with other Geronimo modules (e.g.
>> "core")?
>>
>> Would
>> org.apache.geronimo.eclipse.feature
>> org.apache.geronimo.eclipse.core
>>
>> be less confusing?
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geir@optonline.net
|