Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of goyathlay.geronimo@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.171 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=aMgzQs32LSWfhRu8vBiwBxAnlZErJRVP/sYUKtcdKQgakwq2MW1kA7+8UZNz72RDDUlAwx5BTHa6zVnc5/zJ8oePHorn79LC9Zq0TLtNHrne13lep1sq16kgDMV505/+aYhrCdXZ12Im4SiDxSnUl2c4hjOrO3AgweV6V4TGZVg=
Message-ID: <c278ac970606050844s3a13219er2703ec610ed9e0bc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 11:44:38 -0400
From: "Prasad Kashyap" <goyathlay.geronimo@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: I think groupIds in m2 build need improvement
In-Reply-To: <44842CE9.4000303@hogstrom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <E5BA3282-7551-4F9C-BC12-99F01DDE9D1A@yahoo.com>
	 <44842CE9.4000303@hogstrom.org>

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>