geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From anita kulshreshtha <a_kuls...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Date Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:51:13 GMT
     As expressed in this mail, time has come to consider this issue
again. With current groupIds 'target' directory can not be deleted on
windows during the build. It has deeply nested files with long names, a
very familiar issue by now..(see the error message posted below). Here
is an [RTC] posted about this issue :

http://www.nabble.com/-RTC--initial-m2-groupIds-t1738517.html#a4724585
    Windows experts please review the issue and provide comments and
votes.

Thanks
Anita

[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] [clean:clean]
[INFO] Deleting directory
D:\anita\geronimo\geronimo-1.2\configs\console-tomcat\target
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Failed to delete directory:
D:\xxxxx\geronimo\geronimo-1.2\configs\console-tomcat\target. R
son: Unable to delete file
D:\xxxxx\geronimo\geronimo-1.2\configs\console-tomcat\target\repository
rg\apache\geronimo\configs\webconsole-tomcat\1.2-SNAPSHOT\webconsole-tomcat-1.2-SNAPSHOT.car\stand
d.war\META-INF\maven\org.apache.geronimo.applications.console\geronimo-console-standard
   
Here are the exerpts from an [RTC]

--- anita kulshreshtha <a_kulshre@yahoo.com> wrote:

> inline..
> 
> --- 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 :-).
> 
> yep
> 
> > 
> > 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" ?
> 
> Thanks
> Anita
> 
> > 
> > Comments?
> > 
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Mime
View raw message