geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: Sample plan bits for configId branch, please review!
Date Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:48:09 GMT
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>


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.

-dain




Mime
View raw message