geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Sample plan bits for configId branch, please review!
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:34:35 GMT
On 2/15/06, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> > 1) It seems like the name-key elements should be wrapped in another
> > element. Perhaps an element named name-pattern or something similar.
>
> Maybe we just make these generic properties:
>
>    <properties>
>      <property>
>        <name>domain</name>
>        <value>geronimo.maven</value>
>      </property>
>      <property>
>        <name>J2EEServer</name>
>        <value>geronimo</value>
>      </property>
>    </properties>

Yes, using the properties element is a good idea. I like that.

> On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:13 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > The biggest change I'd request is to take the Id of the end of group
> > and artifact.  I don't think it adds anything, and it makes it harder
> > to read and repeat (is that Id or ld, for example).  If we really have
> > to keep it, I'd prefer artifact-id and group-id, but I really don't
> > see why we shouldn't just use group, type, artifact, and version.
>
> If we are going with maven style dependencies I think we should
> follow their xml (http://maven.apache.org/maven-model/maven.html) as
> close as possible.  If we are going to split from their format, I
> would like the difference to not be subtle, which would rule out
> dropping just the Id and reusing elements named "scope" or "type" for
> something other than what they mean in maven.

While I agree in theory, let's see how this proves out in practice. I
think building on the Maven concepts is fine.

Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo (http://geronimo.apache.org/)

Castor (http://castor.org/)

Mime
View raw message