geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jason Dillon" <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:35:35 GMT
I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
but, I also don't think that we need to worry about the groupId's
right now.

Once we completely move to m2, we will want to rearrange our codebase
and at that time I think we may want to introduce one or two
additional groupId's to keep the repo organized.

I think it is premature to be talking about changing groupId's right now.

--jason


On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.  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?
>
> I think that we should keep everything org.apache.geronimo.  Having a
> byzantine group id hierarchy will only confuse those poor souls that
> want to use our artifacts.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message