On Mar 20, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
On 3/20/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think we've been specific enough about what goes where for
jason's proposal to make sense yet, as gianni points out.
I'm sure we don't want all 100K artifacts we produce all under o.a.g
or o.a.g.server
I mostly definitely agree. In the maven repo, dumping all the
artifacts in the o.a.g.server directory would be very confusing.
WAIT! We most certainly are not going to be dumping all artifacts
into one groupId... so lets just stop that talk here... that does not
make sence, will not happen.
Removing the geronimo- qualifier in front of the modules makes it
even more confusing.
This is what I just don't get... how is this confusing? We all know
these are artifacts from org.apache.geronimo.* based on the
groupId... why then do we need to prefix the artifact with more? For
the most part these artifacts all live in a repo, so the groupId is
clear. A few live in lib/* though there aren't any name conflicts
there... and even if there were its easy enough to get the assembly
plugin to make them use specific names if needed.
Now, if you want to restructure everything based on features, that is
a different gameplan all together. We can discuss that.
Yes, that is ultimately the point... but somehow this thread has
gotten way off track. This thread was about the groupId of the maven
plugins... and about the base groupId of the server and if/how it
should be changed soon. Restructuring is not anything that will
happen soon, though folks should start to think about it more...
cause it is on the horizon.
--jason
