geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Prasad Kashyap" <goyathlay.geron...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:44:38 GMT
Here's the discussion on why we had to change the groupIds
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg19426.html

And here's the JIRA that restructured the POMs and gave those groupIds.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1755

I hope I understood what David is saying correctly.

I guess I'm okay with renaming configs as modules but I think we are
better off keeping separate groupIds for each major branch under
geronimo root. In the m2 repo, this would then be analogous to keeping
the jars, cars, etc separate in the current m2 repo. If we had the
same groupId (o.a.g), then all the artifacts from modules, configs,
apps, plugins etc would end up together in one dir in the repo (o.a.g)

o/a/g/geronimo-kernel  (module artifact)
o/a/g/geronimo-deployment-plugin (plugin artifact)
o/a/g/welcome-jetty (config artifact)

Now, maybe this is not such a bad thing but I hope some resident M2
gurus can weigh in on this too.

Cheers
Prasad



On 6/5/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I guess the other consideration is for people outside our project that want to pick up
piece parts
> (like the Tx manager).  Please remember that not all OSes will be able to tolerate super
long file
> names and these will go into the repo.  I know there is some head room but were stealing
it from the
> users.
>
> 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?
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message