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 21:05:31 GMT
We already use a separate groupId for specs. (o.a.g.specs). We have to
decide between having some 5 top level groupIds under o.a.g  versus
having all artifacts for modules, configs, specs, samples, under the
same groupId. I am beginning to think, seeing the latter in the repo
is more confusing.

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)



Cheers
Prasad



On 6/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
> > I don't think we want to use org.apache.geronimo for everything...
> Can you supply a concrete use case?
> > 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.
>
> I don't agree.  Unless I'm missing something, there's no point in waiting.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> > 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