www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Loughran <steve.lough...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Maven repository policies
Date Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:22:14 GMT
On 7/28/05, robert burrell donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 10:22 +0100, Steve Loughran wrote:
> > On 7/27/05, robert burrell donkin <rdonkin@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 07:12 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > > > Brett Porter wrote:
> >
> > > this is a good point: organisations change but code continues.
> > >
> > > why not just use package names?
> > >
> >
> > because often package names themselves are historical accidents.
> > "org.apache.tools.ant", being a case in point, how microsoft used
> > com.ms for all their J++ stuff another (that is morgan stanley's
> > domain, see)
> 
> the organisation structures associated with open source projects are
> also often historical accidents. at least the package is something which
> is code related and embedded in the artifacts.

good point.

> 
> for example, it's asking a lot for a user to know that for castor x.y.z,
> i need to look under www.exolab, for castor a.b.c i need to look under
> sourceforge.net and for castor n.m.l i should look under java.net. IMHO
> not obvious. on the other hand, org.castor is really easy to find.

yes, org.castor makes the most sense. 

> 
> > maybe it could be like package naming, with some rules but also
> > per-org freedom. Here, using the MUST/MAY/SHOULD terminology of IETF
> > specs:
> >
> > 0. packages MUST use the domain at the beginning (org.apache,com.sun)
> 
> therefore projects hosted at sourceforge would have to start with
> sourceforge.net

unless they have their own domain/org. Certainly projects I work on by
day are sforge hosted, but they have their own domains. even my laptop
has its own domain these days.

> 
> > 1. it's left to every organisation to do layout under there -we just
> > declare what they SHOULD do.
> >
> > 2. for apache, jakarta stuff MAY go toplevel, as would tomcat, ant,
> > maven, xml, ws projects.
> 
> is there any particular reason why you have proposed jakarta as a
> special case?

I worry about apache itself devolving to a flat directory structure
too. I suppose the main projects could be standalone, but what about
the commons things?

> 
> > 3. jakarta-commons MUST  be separate from org.apache.commons,
> 
> is there any particular reason why you have proposed jakarta-commons as
> a special case?
> 
> > in case there is an xml-commons, ws-commons, etc.
> 
> (FWIW these already exist but coexist by choosing different names for
> components)
> 
> maybe i'm missing the reason why organisation structure needs to be
> embedded in the structure of the repository...
> 

because flat naming schemes dont scale. http://ibiblio.org/maven/ is a
case in point.

Mime
View raw message