gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <brett.por...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [RT] module, project, target = repository, module, project...
Date Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:56:57 GMT
Hi Leo,

On 4/17/05, Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com> wrote:
> The more and more I look at this, the more I'm disliking how all this is set
> up, esp. as its not very consistent across different projects, and we don't
> have very clear guidelines on how people should be doing this (other than
> "copy existing practices"). It's a little messy.
> 
> I'm tempted to do a radical remodelling of our metadata structure to remove
> this kind of ambiguity, even going as far as having conventions like
> project-name-is-file-name be gently enforced.

This was exactly the problem that was encountered in attempting to
match gump IDs to Maven IDs - firstly that there was inconsistent
naming, but also because they used a different scheme. I've detailed
this, and possible solutions in either Maven or Gump here:
http://wiki.apache.org/gump/MavenId

What do you think of using the group ID and artifact ID ideas in gump?

So:
- a group is a collection of projects, and a project builds one or
more artifacts.
- group probably equates to a repository, currently
- project is a build, but has no ID of its own, just a path relative
to the repository
- artifact equates to the jar id in gump now
- all internal references are by groupID + artifactID

Note also that groups are hierachical now, so while jakarta-commons
may be a group, so is jakarta-commons-jelly (as long as a group can
contain a group, this will work from gump perspective also).

WDYT?

Cheers,
Brett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org


Mime
View raw message