geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jacek Laskowski" <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>
Subject Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2006 06:45:46 GMT
Hi Dave,

I don't have preference for anything wrt the naming so I'm +0 for the
change if it suits you. We'll see how it goes once the conversion's
done. At the moment I think we should rather focus on achieving the
final result (and to be honest the change doesn't buy us much) but
don't want to hinder introducing it only because I haven't completely
grasped it yet.

Jacek

On 6/5/06, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Right now the groupIds in the m2 build are
>
> org.apache.geronimo.modules for the jar files
> org.apache.geronimo.configs for the car files
>
> I think these are both bad.  First of all, due to our recent
> renaming, the configs should if anything get the modules name :-).
>
> More important, I think at least for jars the groupId should be part
> or all of the package name of the stuff in the jar.  So, we'd either use
> org.apache.geronimo
>
> or
>
> org.apache.geronimo.activation
> org.apache.geronimo.axis
> org.apache.geronimo.axis-builder
> ...
> org.apache.geronimo.webservices
>
> for the jars.  Personally I have a preference for plain
> org.apache.geronimo for all the jars.  However if recommended maven
> usage is the longer names I'm ok with that too.
>
> For the configurationsXXXXXXXXX modules, I'm nearly neutral between
> org.apache.geronimo and org.apache.geronimo.module[s], slightly
> preferring the shorter name.
>
> Comments?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>


-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl

Mime
View raw message