geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <d...@iq80.com>
Subject Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:50:23 GMT
On Jun 5, 2006, at 2:41 PM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> 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?

Yes, that was confusing.  Sorry

o.a.g is cool... I am most concerned about the groupId being the  
first part of package name.  Said another way, I don't want to see  
o.a.g.foo on a jar containing the class o.a.g.bar.Stuff.

-dain

> 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