myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Bohmann <bernd.bohm...@atanion.com>
Subject Re: [maven] We need to make a decision
Date Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:48:04 GMT


Sean Schofield schrieb:


> 
> We're talking about the result (longer directory names) which I think
> everyone can have an opinion on regardless of their Maven knowledge. 
> So far nobody has presented a maven *requirement* that we use longer
> names.  Wendy has pointed out several times now about how the artifact
> names and directories do not have to match.
> 
Your only question was do you prefer a short name. If you ask me I would 
agree. But this is not the core question but some of the consequences.


> Since maven doesn't require it, I prefer to keep the names the way
> they were before we went down the maven road.  We made other changes
> to our svn to accomodate maven b/c they were not as disagreeable and
> because using the maven directory layout makes the pom's much cleaner.
> 
> 
>>For me it is the best outcome.
> 
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
>>But I hope you get some more maven background now and you change your mind.
>>And please look at the structure of the maven project, maybe you
>>understand me then.
> 
> 
> I've looked at the maven project.  I find it confusing.  Here's what I
> would expect to see:
> 
> maven
> maven/core
> maven/continuum
> maven/plugins
> maven/plugins/foo
> maven/plugins/bar
> ... etc.
> 
 From my experience the struture of maven make sense

> Something like that.  But that's not how they chose to organize it. 
> Its their project so they can organize it how they want.
> 
> 
>>All of adf would be tomahawk? I don't expect it. Some of the parts can
>>be merge with tomahawk. I think this must be technical decision and not
>>only discuss internal in the PMC.
> 
> 
> I agree.  Ted Husted and I made this point several times on the PMC
> mailing list during the early days of the discussion.  Oracle wanted
> to keep things confidential until they had internal approval.  I was
> against any serious discussion that did not take place in public.

Ok, we will wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, very little was decided and very little was discussed
> on the PMC list.  Pretty much everything was deferred until Oracle
> decided to make the source publicly available.
> 
> One issue that I raised was that the ADF stuff should make as much use
> of myfaces-commons as possible (including moving tomahawk and the impl
> to the ADF way when it made sense.)  A bunch of PMC members said "Yes.
>  I agree" to that sentiment.  The other issue that I raised was that
> we should try to consolidate the number of components when there was
> overlap and that the components should all live in tomahawk.  Again, I
> received a lot of +1's for that statement.

This is the renderkit part of adf. But what about the other stuff?
> 
> So even though nothing has been decided I have a pretty good idea of
> how myself and other PMC members will vote when it comes down to it.
> 
> As for the private PMC discussions, I agree with you.  This should
> have been 100% on the dev list but since not everyone wanted to do
> this, I deferred to the others.
> 
> 
>>Do you expect a 1.2 api from myfaces?
> 
> 
> You mean a jsf 1.2 implementation?  Yes.  Will it be its own
> subproject?  No.  That's my personal opinion based on what I know now.
>  The api is already pretty stable now.  So we would probably create a
> branch for the 1.1 implementation once we started work on 1.2.
> 
> 
>>Is was only an example.
>>What is your problem with tobago-core?
> 
> 
> What is your problem with tobago/core?  We seem to be going in circles here ...
> 
Yes :-)
> 
>>Sorry, I'm talking about their source repository. They don't have a
>>different way they implements the maven way.
> 
> 
> I looked at it.  I prefer the shorter names.  Again, there is only so
> many ways to say the same thing.
> 
> 
>>>Why not a different group id for all of the subprojects?
>>>
>>>org.apache.myfaces.core
>>>org.apache.myfaces.commons
>>>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk
>>>org.apache.myfaces.sandbox
>>>
>>
>>Why not, but I would prefer org.apache.myfaces for core
>>If sandbox depends on tomahawk it should be org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk
> 
> 
> I'm not against org.apache.myfaces for core but it seems weird for
> org.apache.myfaces to apply to a subproject when the rest would have
> their own group ids.  What do you think?
>
I think it is the root of myfaces.

> 
> I think myfaces-maven makes perfect sense for things that are 100%
> maven related.  Master poms, plugins and archtypes are all
> maven-related.  So I think myfaces-maven is more
> appropriate/descriptive then myfaces-project.
> 


> 
>>>>myfaces-tomahawk
>>>>tomahawk
>>>
>>>
>>>+1 tomahawk
>>>
>>
>>ok, but which name for the tomahawk master pom?
> 
> 
> I was wondering the same thing.
> 
> tomahawk-pom?

tomahawk-project you would prefer tomahawk-maven but i don't like it

> 
> 
>>>>myfaces-sandbox
>>>>tomahawk-sandbox
>>>
>>>sandbox
>>>
>>
>>the master pom of sandbox can't be sandbox because the sandbox src pom
>>has already this artifactId
> 
> 
> sandbox-pom for the parent pom.  It makes sense doesn't it? Nobody
> will see these poms anyways so I don't think the names are too
> important.  Whatever we call the jar (myfaces-sandbox, sandbox or
> tomahawk-sandbox) that artifact id has to be reserved for
> sandbox/sandbox.

Ok, sandbox-project


Bernd

Mime
View raw message