geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From anita kulshreshtha <>
Subject Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2006 03:07:27 GMT

--- David Jencks <> 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. 

so it will be - 
o.a.g - all jars
o.a.g.plugins - all plugins
o.a.g.modules - all cars ?
o.a.g.applications - all apps and 
o.a.g.specs - 
   I also agree we do not need o.a.g.axis etc.

 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.
   We might have to come back to trim the names once we have the
applications cars. I prefer o.a.g.modules (like specs). It will keep
the jars and the cars in different directories. 
   Should we remove configurations from the <name> too, e.g.
"geronimo configuration for performing service deployments" ?


> Comments?
> thanks
> david jencks

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

View raw message