geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:41:17 GMT

On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:32 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> I find it a PITA when the groupId doesn't match the Java package  
> name for jar files.  For modules (FKA configs), I don't have any  
> opinion.  For assemblies, I think we should use o.a.g.

Can you be more specific? What do you want the transaction jar  
groupId to be? o.a.g or o.a.g.transaction?

I'm waffling but I guess I agree that shorter is better for the  
assemblies, I would prefer o.a.g rather than o.a.g.assemblies

thanks
david jencks

>
> -dain
>
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>>> o.a.g.modules (formerly called configs)
>>> o.a.g.xxx (formerly called modules)
>>> o.a.g.plugins
>>> o.a.g.assemblies
>>> o.a.g.applications
>>> o.a.g.specs (has been in use for a while now)
>>
>> I think this is reasonable for the code-base as it exists now.
>>
>> --jason
>


Mime
View raw message