www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michal Maczka <mmac...@interia.pl>
Subject Re: [proposal] java artifact specifier v0.1
Date Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:16:57 GMT
Peter Donald wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:04 pm, Michal Maczka wrote:
>>Yes - you are right they don't differ in this purpose.
>>But it doesn't mean that one of them is not need. I think that
>>repository is "easily navigated"
>>when both "groupId" and "type" directories co-exits.
>I guess what I saying is why not collapse both of them into one given that 
>there is no distinction in purpose or in implementation.
>The only purpose of "type" in maven is to indicate how it is processed by the 
>runtime. (ie plugins get installed, jars get added to classpath etc). It does 
>not even specify that extension as there is a M-to-M between type and 
>extension. ie.

I don't agree that this is the only purpose of "type".

I think it's reasonable to have "type"  directory as this can separate 
artifact produced by various tools.
For example Ant is not build with Maven (and never will be) but we can 
still add Maven's POM for Ant to the repository.
The POM can be also added for Struts, Xerces etc.  If some other tools 
like Gump need their own meta data
they should be free to add it to the repository.  But I question the 
fact if such files should be mixed with "distributions".
I don't like an idea of putting everything into one huge bag.  If I were 
a Struts developer I would hate
if somebody puts some strange artifacts into the directory which I 
maintain. I would like to have an exclusivity
for adding artifacts to directories like (jars/sources/distribution). 
But I could accept if  somebody (some tool)
is keeping its files in sibling directories. Also some "exotic" 
artifacts are making the repository harder to navigate.
Why to mix them with "importand" artifacts?


View raw message