On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Jeremy Hughes wrote: > I'm trying to understand what the org/apache/aries maven repo space > will look like once we release our 0.1 artifacts. > > AIUI, and based on release discussions so far, when we release the > artifacts they will be pushed up to Nexus by the maven release plugin. > Those artifacts in turn come from the local .m2 repo put there by mvn > install. > > So I cleaned out my .m2/repository/org/apache/aries then did a mvn > clean install to see what was there. I think we need to move things > about a bit (or rather rename some artifactIds) to make our > artifactIds and groupIds consistently named. Later, after the 0.1 > release, we could also improve things to make sure there is a > consistent relationship between source tree location and location of > the built artifact in the repo. > > A built artifact is always given the name of the artifactId - and even > if there were a way of changing that, from an ease of understanding > point of view, we probably shouldn't as that is what anyone who uses > maven assumes. > > Many of our bundle artifacts (all except the samples) follow the > <package name>-<version> naming convention which means their > artifactIds also do - this is the same as the bundle artifacts of the > Felix subprojects. So I suggest we follow the same pattern applying it > across the samples too. This has the effect of giving us uniquely > named artifactIds across the whole project (e.g. we don't have two > artifacts called "api" for example) - which means m2eclipse is happy > by default.
I seem to recall some discussion on this previously, but can't say I came away with an understanding. So, I'll ask my naive question... What's the motivation for naming artifactid's this way? e.g.: org/apache/aries/blueprint/org.apache.aries.blueprint.core/0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT/org.apache.aries.blueprint.core-0.1-incubating-SNAPSHOT.jar --kevan
