geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: What is a plugin? geronimo or maven?
Date Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:11:44 GMT
We may want to take this time to fix a few other groupId thingys too...

We should change the base server/trunk groupId to:

     org.apache.geronimo.server

And perhaps change the 'applications' groupId to simply 'apps'...  
anyways, we'd end up with ids like:

     testsupport/* 		org.apache.geronimo.server
     modules/* 			org.apache.geronimo.server
     configs/* 			org.apache.geronimo.server.configs
     applications/* 		org.apache.geronimo.server.apps
     maven-plugins/*	org.apache.geronimo.server.mavenplugins
     assemblies/* 		org.apache.geronimo.server.assemblies
     testsuite/*			org.apache.geronimo.server.testsuite

If we want to use "org.apache.geronimo.server.maven" for our plugins,  
then I suggest we rename "maven-plugins/*" to "maven/*" to keep  
things consistent. And actually I would do the same for "applications/ 
*", rename it to "apps/*".

I also think that we should still re-organize modules/* configs/*  
into groups based on the features they provide (like all activemq,  
jetty, tomcat, etc) and I would put the configuration modules in the  
same group dirs.  For an example of that peep at the structure of the  
g1.1-activemq4  stuff I just added:

     https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/g1.1-activemq4/

This is how I would recommend we eventually get our modules  
organized... into directories which contain all of the modules (and  
config modules) for a particular integration.  This makes it much  
easier to work on a specific feature... can simply `cd <feature>;  
mvn` to build those modules.

And, well.. if we keep along the same idea of structure reform, I  
think we should probably start to think about dropping those  
"geronimo-" prefixes that we have everywhere.  I don't believe they  
are useful, and only eat up space  in the filename length.  The  
groupId should be sufficient to indicate these are Geronimo  
artifacts, we don't need to remind people by adding that to the  
artifact name too.

Some of this might be more disruptive than we can handle for right  
now, especially while trying to get 2.0 out ASAP.  I was hoping to  
delay most of the major reorganization surgery until 2.1.  But I  
think a few of the groupId-based changes can be done for 2.0 soonish  
if we want.

For the larger moving stuff around... I am going to use svk2 to setup  
a branch in the sandbox, pulling in new changes from trunk to keep it  
up to date.  From what I've been told svk2 handles merges from source  
into target branches when the target branch has stuff moved around...  
and I want to make sure that works.  If it does... well, then the  
whole restructuring will be trivial, we can keep working on trunk  
asis then once the new structure is happy, we can just switch over  
with very little merge overhead.

--jason


On Mar 18, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:

> +1 to change. either one is ok.
>
> -- dims
>
> On 3/18/07, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>> The maven plugins should be changed to
>> org.apache.geronimo.mavenplugins IMO, been on my list... just never
>> happened.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2007, at 8:52 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> > It looks to me as if we are well on our way to use the groupId of
>> > org.apache.geronimo.plugins for both maven plugins and geronimo
>> > plugins.  This might not be the wisest thing we ever did.
>> >
>> > What if we changed the maven plugins to use
>> > org.apache.geronimo.maven?  Aside from massive backwards
>> > compatibility problems :-) this seems to me as if it might be the
>> > most appropriate naming change.
>> >
>> > thanks
>> > david jencks
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services  
> Developers


Mime
View raw message