gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: What do we do with "beanutils"?
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:16:24 GMT
It's been my understanding that right now the artifact id is more
important than the project name.  Is this wrong?

On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Brett Porter <> wrote:

> - gump has a dummy project "beanutils" that depends just on
> beanutils-core. I don't think this works with Maven though.

If it works for Maven, then let's just do that since it is the least

> - projects declare any aliases in their gump descriptor (and Maven
> allows that in the POM so it can generate the descriptor for
> them). So beanutils-core has an alias of beanutils

I understand the part about projects declaring aliases (we may even
need to do that on the artifact level IMHO).  I don't understand why
Maven needs to know about those at all - other than the Gump plugin,
maybe.  I'm absolutely willing to maintain these aliases on an
as-needed basis.

> - we don't do anything. When a project changes name, they accept
> they are going to break projects and they have to catch
> up.

But have the projects chosen the name?  I mean, is it the project's
fault if the name we (Gump) assign to it and the one Maven uses for it
are different?  Has the project itself any say in either of both?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message